Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[AmyStrange]

-

You've burgled? WTF!

Who knew? Have you ever decided to team up with two strangers connected to an apartment you had cased, and committed a sex murder with them on the fly, just because?

This thing about needing to go to the bathroom after breaking a window, fact or fiction? And is flushing a part of it?

Do you also have black-out fugue states, and like Rudy, make yourself at home, and pretend to have a family life once inside?

-

I've mentioned that before.

No to the first question, and no to the rest also. I got in and got out. Some people actually do get off on doing the things that you mentioned though,

d

-

 

[Numbers]

Seems Mr. Scadron lacks the understanding - obvious to most Italians - that Hellmann's verdict was absolute ****, as well as the Vecchiotti-Conti report.

I anticipate he will have to add a new chapter to his conspiracy theory, when Hellmann and Vecchiotti are indicted.

I am sure it will be a remarkable day for Italy when Hellmann and Vecchiotti will be indicted. (And what about Conti? Is it unfair to leave out one of the authors of the independent experts' report?)

I am confident people in Europe and America will observe in wonder if this indictment comes to pass.

Is there an active investigation? How far along is it?

Is the day that the indictment will be announced already chosen? I would suggest that the anniversary of Benito Mussolini's birthday (29 July 1883) would be appropriate.

 

[Bill Williams]

-


-

I remember reading that somewhere else that Amanda's window was the easiest. I think it was in Follain's book, but I'm not sure.

Of course, if it's true that Rudy has used this almost exact method to break and enter before, that adds credibility to the arguement that he did break in that way, but that still doesn't change my feelings about that window not being my first choice of entry,

d

-

The issue is not "easiest". Burglars don't take the time to test all entrances, sit and consider....

They go in an easy route. Like Filomena's window.

 

[Machiavelli]

The issue is not "easiest". Burglars don't take the time to test all entrances, sit and consider....

They go in an easy route. Like Filomena's window.

You are coaching Amy about how to burgle. Wow. Don't consider, be more instinctive, trust the Force...
That's how they do...

Ps: Guede perfectly knew the balcony entrance and its grating below.

 

[Dan O.]

...

Maybe before Rudy got started, Meredith came home.

There is no point if trying to argue against the lies that Machiavelli spews. Laura's underwear drawer was found open and the bedding had been disturbed. It's as if someone had searched that room for hidden cash before grabbing a quick snack from the fridge and stopping to use the bathroom.

He certainly had time to go through the entire house before Meredith came home. Laura's immaculate room is the only one that would show a trespass.

Rudy even mentions knowing where Amanda kept her rent money. In what scenario is this explained?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

thoughts on Filomena's window vs. the balcony

The fact that the landlord added bars to what had been Filomena's window is indicative that this was in fact a plausible mode of entry. So are the various climbs that the lawyer and the climbing enthusiast have done. Moreover, throwing the rock also served the purpose of determining that no one was home. I am unclear how one was supposed to ascertain this if he or she broke in through the balcony.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

failed arguments for staging

14. no DNA from epithelial cell found on the sill or on the window frame;

15. there is large crumbles of white paint from the painting of the window inner shutter that were fallen on te clothes strewn on the floor (further evidence suggesting clothes were tossed before the smashing);

16. no footprints were found on the soil/grass beneath

There was a TMB-positive substance found (Rep. 199). As for the putative lack of DNA, given Stefanoni's penchant for not providing all egrams, I have no reason to believe her results are accurate. In addition, I recall that the confirmatory test was not run until several months later, but I am not sure about when the DNA sample was run. The photos of Filomena's room I recall show a crumbly substance on a few of the clothes. The cops walked and smoked in the area below her window, and this might have obliterated footprints. Besides, there is no reason to believe that the soil was particularly wet that night.

 

[Machiavelli]

There is no point if trying to argue against the lies that Machiavelli spews. Laura's underwear drawer was found open and the bedding had been disturbed. It's as if someone had searched that room for hidden cash before grabbing a quick snack from the fridge and stopping to use the bathroom.

He certainly had time to go through the entire house before Meredith came home. Laura's immaculate room is the only one that would show a trespass.

Rudy even mentions knowing where Amanda kept her rent money. In what scenario is this explained?

Come on be serious. No drawer was searched. No other room was searched and nothing was tossed around anywhere, only Filomena's room had this nonsensical theatrical chaos.

 

[Bill Williams]

You are coaching Amy about how to burgle. Wow. Don't consider, be more instinctive, trust the Force...
That's how they do...

Ps: Guede perfectly knew the balcony entrance and its grating below.

Please, come over here. I have someone you need to meet.

 

[Machiavelli]

I am sure it will be a remarkable day for Italy when Hellmann and Vecchiotti will be indicted. (And what about Conti? Is it unfair to leave out one of the authors of the independent experts' report?)

I am confident people in Europe and America will observe in wonder if this indictment comes to pass.

Is there an active investigation? How far along is it?

Is the day that the indictment will be announced already chosen? I would suggest that the anniversary of Benito Mussolini's birthday (29 July 1883) would be appropriate.

I'm afraid you have been a little over the top lately.

 

[Numbers]

I'm afraid you have been a little over the top lately.

Does this mean that you are now claiming that there is no investigation or potential indictment?

Sometimes, Mach, I really just don't know if you are making accurate statements or not.

Could you include some special sign - one of the smilies, like this

when you are actually saying something with any validity.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

The issue is not "easiest". Burglars don't take the time to test all entrances, sit and consider....

They go in an easy route. Like Filomena's window.

You are coaching Amy about how to burgle. Wow. Don't consider, be more instinctive, trust the Force...
That's how they do...

Ps: Guede perfectly knew the balcony entrance and its grating below.

-

I've never done my burglaries on the fly (spur of the moment). I've always checked the place out first, the surrounding houses and windows, lighting, driveways, nearby roads, trees, shrubbery, then the house itself.

At night, if you wear dark clothes, it's easy to blend into the shadows, but climbing in through a second story window... like I said, I'm a ground floor kind of guy, but that's me. I have no idea what Rudy does or would do,

I do remember doing one on the fly a long time ago when I was really young with a few friends, but I was just the lookout. We drove around looking for a good place and then my friends went straight for the back door,

d

-

 

[Desert Fox]

I've never done my burglaries on the fly (spur of the moment). I've always checked the place out first, the surrounding houses and windows, lighting, driveways, nearby roads, trees, shrubbery, then the house itself.

At night, if you wear dark clothes, it's easy to blend into the shadows, but climbing in through a second story window... like I said, I'm a ground floor kind of guy, but that's me. I have no idea what Rudy does or would do,

I do remember doing one on the fly a long time ago when I was really young with a few friends, but I was just the lookout. We drove around looking for a good place and then my friends went straight for the back door,
-

I have to agree on the dark clothing bit. . . .I had a really incompetent supervisor on one of my security jobs in the past. He got his job by getting the manager's boss pregnant but he was dumb as a bag of rocks (He was studying for the ASVAB test.) I played games where I would be out in the field in the dark and he would wonder where I was looking for me with a flash light. It completely destroyed his night vision while it let me know exactly where he was.

Still, I did stay in shadowy areas. I am curious if that balcony has a light. If so, the window may be a much better choice. Nothing like being silhouetted by a light.

 

[Kauffer]

There was a TMB-positive substance found (Rep. 199). As for the putative lack of DNA, given Stefanoni's penchant for not providing all egrams, I have no reason to believe her results are accurate. In addition, I recall that the confirmatory test was not run until several months later, but I am not sure about when the DNA sample was run. The photos of Filomena's room I recall show a crumbly substance on a few of the clothes. The cops walked and smoked in the area below her window, and this might have obliterated footprints. Besides, there is no reason to believe that the soil was particularly wet that night.

There appears, from the photographs, to have been plenty of evidence available in Romanelli's room of the ingress of a real burglar, including, as you point out, soil like deposits in a number of positions. Additionally, glass from the broken window was found in Ms Kercher's room.

The major problem, which had calamitous implications for the defence, was that firstly the postale police thought they had encountered a fake burglary (before the body was discovered) for insurance fraud reasons. Then, after the body had been discovered, this assumption carried over into the murder investigation, supported by the additional (erroneous) observation that Romanelli's window was too high for a burglar to climb to.

Thus, within an hour, the PLE had positively ruled out that a burglar was responsible for any of the criminality, including the murder. They did not test the hypothesis (it simply became a fact) and consequently there is a distinct lack of solid evidence gathered in connection with it.

That the notion of a fake and staged burglary has been allowed to stand alongside the demonstrable lack of professionalism of the police and CSIs not only failing to do any proper investigatory work but failing to appreciate that there was actually work to do, is one of the most extraordinary aspects of this case.

 

[Planigale]

Planigale,

IIUC Massei's hypothesis is that someone broke the window by hitting the outside face, but only after the window had already been swung into the room. No one ever tested Massei's conjecture, but Sgt. Pasquali did test the defense's hypothesis. IMO Massei's theory predicts a different distribution of glass inside the room because the position of impact with respect to the room and the momentum of the rock are both different.

The other problem I have with Massei's version of events is that Amanda or Raffaele would have to break the window with a dead body in the flat, potentially alerting neighbors or anyone passing by. (because of the valley effect, the noise would amplify in the vicinity of Nara's apartment, and she would have heard it)

Massei was a judge not the prosecuting authority. What we see here is the prosecution hypothesis disproved, so the judge chooses a different hypothesis that the defence has no opportunity to refute because it was not presented in court. This is where the court system has not moved from an inquisitorial system where the judge legitimately develops a theory of the crime to an adversarial approach where the prosecution case has to be accepted if proven beyond reasonable doubt. Hellman appears to have adopted an adversarial approach - the prosecution failed to prove their case - case dismissed. The supreme court effectively pointed Nencini towards an inquisitorial approach whereby the judge had to synthesise a conclusion from an osmotic assessment of individual pieces of evidence rather than holistically assessing the prosecution case as given.

 

[Kauffer]

I have already expressed my conclusions about this. I do not apply your reasoning at all, and I interpret any legal decision through legal principles (not trough Bill Williams' standards). Nencini was absolutely correct in his convicting decision, but his task is to establish whether it was beyond reasonable doubt that Knox is guilty, not whethr it was beyond reasonable doubt that she was inside the murder room plunging a knife in Meredith's neck.

Only her guilt needs to be established beyond reasonable doubt. The physical dynamics don't need to be determined with absolute certainty.

I do think that Knox was the one who stroke the fatal blow, because of her connection with the murder weapon and because Sollecito used to carry his own knife, so that he wouldn't need to use the kitchen knife. Therefore it is a straightorward conclusion. But I don't even ask myself whether this detail is certain beyond reasonable doubt, because evidence of guilt does not derive from evidence of this detail.

Your position is a disturbingly and shockingly dishonest one. The convicting judge maintains that Ms Knox stabbed Ms Kercher to death and therefore of course she had to be in Ms Kercher's bedroom in order to accomplish this. The pro guilt community, with very few exceptions, believes that Ms Knox stabbed Ms Kercher to death; you also, believe that Ms Knox stabbed Ms Kercher to death, apparently.

In order to reach this conclusion, it naturally falls to you (and to anyone else for that matter, including from within the motivation reports of the Italian courts) to prove with evidence that Ms Knox committed this close proximity stabbing murder - that she committed the physical act - or you must come to some other conclusion. "They ran out the room", does not represent evidence that she was there or that she killed Ms Kercher.

You simply cannot infer (all be it erroneously) from any other evidence outside Ms Kercher's bedroom, that Ms Knox is guilty of committing the act (that was undoubtedly committed by someone or other), unless you can place her in the room - if there is blood in the luminol footprints, then it was collected in Ms Kercher's bedroom.

You might claim, (for example) that Ms Knox was in the apartment, though not Ms Kercher's bedroom at the time of the murder (I would not agree with you however), but you can no longer claim that Ms Knox was in Ms Kercher's bedroom, let alone that she was the one who "stroke the fatal blow" (sic).

 

[Planigale]

And Wow again I’ll look back in tomorrow to see if you have figured it out.

And yet another case of ‘broken window perplexity’ – Kaosium don’t be angry with me but you must admit the recurrence of this stuff is astonishing.

Humour me Planigale (and I mean that literally) - What do you understand to be ‘the prosecution suggestion’ of how the window was broken?

So educate me what does Mignini say on this?

 

[MDDVS]

Guede is not a "second story burglar", at best - even if not proven - he is a "balcony burglar", who never expressed a penchant for hazardous climbings over easy ones.

The rock could be well thrown from the outside, yet it is not sure and certainly that's not evidence, because also a stager would do that. Anyway, even on this point you do not take into account the external window shutters.

The glass also is just in the room but has little to do with Guede's shoeprint, unless you prove it.

"Hazardous" climbings?

 

[Planigale]

But if they did so as last thing, after they already finished with the other tossing things and cleaning, they would disappear from sight within seconds. So even if some neighbour were alerted by the smash in the night, they would hardly have the time to see somebody.

But after breaking the window, they would need to redistribute the glass in the pattern one would find if the glass had been broken by a stone thrown from the outside, scattering towards the door and over the clothing. They need to sort the glass fragments by size so the smaller fragments are distributed more distantly. They need to move the rock. They need to do all this very carefully, since there is a significant risk of cutting yourself on broken glass (note not safety glass), presumably using gloves since they left no fingerprints. Obviously not just wool gloves since this would have left fibres on the glass. Then having spent so much time moving around they need to clean the glass fragments that would have been in their shoes, and possibly clothes. Pack up and dispose of the gloves, along with the cleaning materials (where?). So quite a lot to do after breaking the window?

If Sollecito (or Knox) had gone out in the dark into the garden to collect a rock, come back into the flat, and broken the window, why is there no grass or mud from his (or her) shoes in the flat? The lack of any forensic evidence (no grass or mud) that would have been left if Sollecito (or Knox) had been out in the garden to pick up the rock then throw it then spend time moving glass fragments around disproves the prosecution hypothesis.

PS does anyone know were there kitchen gloves in the flat? Did any go missing? If not where would they have got the gloves from?

 

[anglolawyer]

But after breaking the window, they would need to redistribute the glass in the pattern one would find if the glass had been broken by a stone thrown from the outside, scattering towards the door and over the clothing. They need to sort the glass fragments by size so the smaller fragments are distributed more distantly. They need to move the rock. They need to do all this very carefully, since there is a significant risk of cutting yourself on broken glass (note not safety glass), presumably using gloves since they left no fingerprints. Obviously not just wool gloves since this would have left fibres on the glass. Then having spent so much time moving around they need to clean the glass fragments that would have been in their shoes, and possibly clothes. Pack up and dispose of the gloves, along with the cleaning materials (where?). So quite a lot to do after breaking the window?

If Sollecito (or Knox) had gone out in the dark into the garden to collect a rock, come back into the flat, and broken the window, why is there no grass or mud from his (or her) shoes in the flat? The lack of any forensic evidence (no grass or mud) that would have been left if Sollecito (or Knox) had been out in the garden to pick up the rock then throw it then spend time moving glass fragments around disproves the prosecution hypothesis.

PS does anyone know were there kitchen gloves in the flat? Did any go missing? If not where would they have got the gloves from?

Planigale - I bet you all the money in Bill's pocket this will get no answer. It never does.