Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

Nope. The current owner of the cottage has barred that particular window, as evidenced in the documentary re-creation.

Probably to prevent break-ins through that window.

Then it wasn't a re-creation of the event.

Correct. The current owner took action to prevent the full act from ever taking place again. Of course, that leaves the pro-guilt lobby unphased.

The first part of the act had also been part of the pro-guilt lobby's claim - that the climb itself was impossible. Judge Massei makes mention of the height of Filomena's window being 3 1/2 meters (approx 12 feet), which led to all the pro-guilt lobby's claim that only Spiderman could have climbed that wall. Judge Massei shows either wilful ignorance of the reality of the climb (perched on the top bar of the lower grate, one is already at chest level of the lower sill of Filomena's wondow, leaving Massei's note of the 3 1/2 meter height somewhat misleading to say the least!)..... or wilful knowledge that he's misstating facts.

However, the documentary showed that by standing upon the top bar of the grate below, it was a simple act to pull oneself up to Filomena's window, without the use of the bars presently there. In fact, the bars make the climb a little more difficult than if not there.

No need to be Spiderman like the lobby has been claiming for the last 7 years. Just reasonably physically fit and have a predisposition/history of doing stuff like that.

Massei downplays the choice of Filomena's window because of an assumed repetition of action, while the perp is betting on a favourable sequence of variables, like whether or not the shutters were latched.

The reality is: no one knows what Rudy saw when he sized up Filomena's window. The reality is that in the same amount of time it took me to type all this, he'd be up and in and dealing with the kebob on the toilet at the far end of the cottage.

The issue is not that it is the easiest way in - the front door is the easiest way in - the issue is that it is exceptionally easy for Rudy to have accomplished what he accomplished by going in that way. The present cottage owner certainly agrees with that assessment!

Then there's Nencini, who says that the staging had to have been a staging, because Rudy would never have staged it that way - it looks too much like his known M.O., who Nencini claims is known by the PLE.

Besides, Nencini says, Rudy is too much of a professional to go in any other way than the front door. Where did Nencini get that assessment? He simply made it up out of thin air.

 

[Bill Williams]

Or by a stager. Where did you think the rock came from?

So let's get this straight - after murdering someone, the perp went outside, and threw a rock through a window.

Right.

The act of doing it before committing a crime lets you know if you need to flee. You do not do it after committing a crime.

Machiavelli - you need to stay away from a life of crime. You do not have the instincts for it.

 

[toto]

Not even before, actually. Neither before burglarizing a home.

Don't agree.
Just to add. when my flat was burgled the thief made a hell of a din kicking my door down. My neighbour thought I had just lost my temper with the door.

 

[carbonjam72]

So let's get this straight - after murdering someone, the perp went outside, and threw a rock through a window.

Right.

The act of doing it before committing a crime lets you know if you need to flee. You do not do it after committing a crime.

Machiavelli - you need to stay away from a life of crime. You do not have the instincts for it.

Apparently Amy can give some pointers, which is both gobsmack shocking, as well as providing new metaphorical insights regarding her avatar.

 

[Bill Williams]

Contrarily from the balcony, Filomena's window is in fact illuminated by the street lamps, and even by the parking lot lamps.

The area below is totally in the dark, allowing Rudy to pick his time. By the time I've typed this, Rudy is up and in.

Not only do the two streetlamps provide illumination for the street (thank you for pointing that out!) the issue is probably that someone using the balcony at night would not know if they were illuminated on it or not.

Therefore the safer route is Filomena's window. But more to the point, Filomena's window is a simple point of entry for someone with experience - like Rudy.

 

[Numbers]

Correct.



Indeed all features of Italy are. It was you who decided to enter the merits of judgment about Italian things. You called some Italian things "fascist", it was a terrain of your choice.[/QUOTE]

Are you telling me that there were no Italian things that were "fascist"?

It was all a bad dream about someone called Benito Mussolini and his followers in black shirts, who clubbed to death, or sometimes merely shot, their opponents, who went on to ally with Hitler, and who declared war on the United States on December 11, 1941?

And that the criminal code of that era survives, in large part, even until today? (Although some parts were, as you stated, declared unconstitutional by the Italian Constitutional Court in the 1950's - they were so prompt.)

I don't believe I called any current-day Italians fascists. Admirers of Mussolini and visitors to his grave site, perhaps, quoting Duggan. I also believe I quoted him as stating that "in 1960 ... 62 of the country's 64 prefects had been civil servants under Mussolini. The same was true of all the 135 police chiefs and their 139 deputies. And many senior figures in the army and the judiciary had likewise established their careers during fascism: the man appointed in 1957 as president of the Constitutional Court ... had served between 1938 and 1943 as president of the Tribunal of Race - the court which adjudicated on issues relating to the fascist racial laws." And perhaps I supplied some similar quotes from Duggan. {Emphasis added.}

I have called guilters and some current Italians authoritarians. But that is a broader category, and could include, for example, Stalinists and similar communists and any person that follows authority blindly. The authoritarian judges in Italy follow perhaps the authority of other judges and prosecutors, not the Italian Constitution or laws, or the ECHR, based on this case.

 

[Kaosium]

Do you have a link to a picture of the window? The sharpness of the glass was mentioned earlier and I got to wondering how someone could stick their arm thru a broken window and not be cut.

Did the re creator actually reach in thru a broken window, open in and go in?

Rudy Guede did, after he'd plucked the glass shards out of part of the bottom frame and placed them on the sill. That made for a big hole as you can see in this picture. Note that there's no shards sticking up from the part where the 'R' card is placed, thus nothing to endanger someone reaching up through that part (standing on the rungs of the bars on the window below) to undo the latch inside.

Those shards missing from the bottom didn't jump up and out of the bottom frame, they were taken out because they inhibited the ability of Rudy Guede to reach in and undo the latch. That would be an awfully fine detail for an amateur 'stager' to think of... ;-)

 

[codyjuneau]

Pretty much. The shutter may already have swung open in the wind though.
ETA and, as predicted, Platonov is not going to deal with the conclusive glass spray (nor cough the twenty he owes me). Come on guilters! Vibio, Briars, Machiavelli, Platonov, you tsig - can't one of you address it?

.
Personally I think the outside shutter was already open, despite Filomena's fuzzy, and possibly self serving memory of probably closing it.

Filomena was in a hurry to go to a party.

The fast easy way to close up the window opening is to close the inside shutter, done.

The slow hard way is to close the outside shutter because in order to do that one has to open the inside shutters if they have already been closed for privacy, unlatch and open both windows, then reach out in the cold to grab a louver or something on each of the outside shutters in order to swing them in far enough to grab the latch and pull it in the rest of the way. Then the windows need to be re-closed and re-latched. Then the internal shutters have to be closed and latched. And by her own admission, the outside shutters could not be closed enough to lock anyway.

I suspect she normally left the outside shutters open, and only open/closed the inside shutters when she went in or out.

Cody
.

 

[Numbers]

.
Personally I think the outside shutter was already open, despite Filomena's fuzzy, and possibly self serving memory of probably closing it.

Filomena was in a hurry to go to a party.

The fast easy way to close up the window opening is to close the inside shutter, done.

The slow hard way is to close the outside shutter because in order to do that one has to open the inside shutters if they have already been closed for privacy, unlatch and open both windows, then reach out in the cold to grab a louver or something on each of the outside shutters in order to swing them in far enough to grab the latch and pull it in the rest of the way. Then the windows need to be re-closed and re-latched. Then the internal shutters have to be closed and latched. And by her own admission, the outside shutters could not be closed enough to lock anyway.

I suspect she normally left the outside shutters open, and only open/closed the inside shutters when she went in or out.

Cody
.

IIRC, the outside shutters could not be latched (or latched properly?) because of warped wood.

Someone can check on the correctness of my recollection.

 

[Planigale]

Again, Wow
So let me see if I have this right. Halides1 jumps in to answer the Q for you – that the prosecution posited that the window was broken from within the room while opened in.
Why h1 felt the need to do this is a mystery indeed but one that may soon be solved if its not already

Now you are claiming that your misunderstanding of a very simple point is in fact correct & that Massei only came up with this hypothesis after Pasquali’s demonstration & That the prosecution hypothesis is something else.

Really! Really?

Do tell, what did the prosecution say?

 

[Planigale]

I'm trying.

The Q was .....
What do you understand to be ‘the prosecution suggestion’ of how the window was broken?

It's not that difficult is it?

I suspect you do not know what the prosecution said. Just commit yourself to a fact for once.

What do you think the prosecution (not the judge) said about breaking the window.

I know do you?

 

[Planigale]

The failure of the defence teams to cover this may have some mundane cause, such as lack of money. I really wish people understood better the financial and time constraints at work here. This was a massively complicated case, not like Dewani or Gillroy or Pistorius or any of the others we come across. Expertise across many disciplines was called into play. That imposes a huge burden on a cash-strapped defence.

I agree, trying to bring in all the experts to cover every angle especially when the prosecution case changes would be prohibitively expensive.

 

[Planigale]

No, I responded on this several yrs ago

And if you do a search for a phrase along the lines of ......
“cant work out a problem that might be given to a 9yr old as part of a 'learning development' test but then want to go on to discuss 'glass distribution' and we are supposed to keep a straight face”
.........You may find other replies.

You just do not get it do you! Mechanics 101. This is nothing to do with glass on a wondow sill, but the observed distribution of glass fragments throughout the room.

 

[Planigale]

Correct insofar as that’s the defence version of the lone wolf break in theory. Dan O had some story about a long stick once IIRC.

What I was referring to was the confusion all the groupies seemingly have with the prosecution argument.
They seem to think that the prosecution argued that the rock was thrown from inside the room outward into the garden
As opposed to : That the window was broken from within the room with the outer shutters closed – easily done as the window opens inward.


IIIRC the origin of this confusion is one of the lunatic fringe FOA sites.
Charllie Wilkes, Kevin Lowe, Kaosium etc etc etc all had difficulty with this – it seems to be a mystery to them how one could break a window from within the room even after it’s been explained.
IIRC halides1 declared this was a 'novel suggestion' when it was first explained to him - I kid you not

Now we see Numbers and Planigale repeating this stuff 4 years later.
Furthermore Numbers seems unaware that if a window is broken by hoofing a rock from the outside you would still get glass in the garden – it doesn’t all magically fly into the room. Check out the Physics 101 post!!
A topic we may have to revisit.

And planigale – well here the confusion is compounded by the fact that she apparently argues that as she couldn’t figure out how the break-in was staged from within the room then obviously neither could the prosecution & Wait for it – that Massei came up with this solution A solution I maintain a 9 yr old could work out.

Then as night follows day once the simple solution is explained the groupies want to discuss glass distribution within the room.
[Here platonov puts his foot down and there is much indignation]

It’s frankly hilarious in a Forest Gump kind of way although the repetition is surreal.
It’s as if they are all following the same playbook but without understanding any of it.

ETA
I left out some good stuff. The nail in the outer wall that you might expect a climber to snag on in the dark – that was put there by RG to aid his climb or used by him in the climb for support. At one stage there was even a missing nail invented which came loose when RG put his weight on it or something.

The empirical experiment showed that glass would not be deposited in the garden if a large stone was thrown from outside into the room through the window with the outside shutter open. I think you must have failed physics 101!

 

[Desert Fox]

I agree, trying to bring in all the experts to cover every angle especially when the prosecution case changes would be prohibitively expensive.

The Casey Anthony defense is suppose to have cost around $150 k for example.

 

[Desert Fox]

Well, you wouldn't want to make a noise after you had murdered someone would you?

Not even before, actually. Neither before burglarizing a home.

As has been argued, making a lot of noise with breaking a window has the advantage of seeing if anybody is home. Granted, I own a firearm (which is much harder in Europe generally) but breaking a window is sure to get me to grab my weapon and turn on lights.

 

[Planigale]

Do you have a link to a picture of the window? The sharpness of the glass was mentioned earlier and I got to wondering how someone could stick their arm thru a broken window and not be cut.

How could someone break the window from inside and then move the glass around and not get cut or get glass fragments on their clothes? How could they bring in a big stone from the muddy garden and not leave mud or glass in the room? I assume the extremely competent Italian forensics looked for glass fragments on Knox's and Sollecito's clothes and did not find any. I assume they looked for fingerprints and DNA and failed to find any. I assume they looked for mud and grass. So how did Knox and Sollecito simulate a break in but leave no evidence of themselves?

 

[Desert Fox]

In my opinion it is rather obvious that a rock went through the glass.

The problem would be when this happened.

The null position is not guilty in an adversarial system. The prosecution cannot just assert that the window break in was staged. Instead, they have to show it. Would not even have cost that much to demonstrate. The problem for the defense is that that they cannot know that this is an important argument of the prosecution so while it would not be all that expensive for them to make a demonstration either they cannot demonstrate that every possible prosecution argument is invalid.

 

[Dougm]

How could someone break the window from inside and then move the glass around and not get cut or get glass fragments on their clothes? How could they bring in a big stone from the muddy garden and not leave mud or glass in the room? I assume the extremely competent Italian forensics looked for glass fragments on Knox's and Sollecito's clothes and did not find any. I assume they looked for fingerprints and DNA and failed to find any. I assume they looked for mud and grass. So how did Knox and Sollecito simulate a break in but leave no evidence of themselves?

Good question. It parallels another one:

So how did Knox and Sollecito simulate a break in commit a vicious, bloody murder, in a small room, with a struggling victim, but leave no evidence of themselves?

 

[Samson]

Rudy Guede did, after he'd plucked the glass shards out of part of the bottom frame and placed them on the sill. That made for a big hole as you can see in this picture. Note that there's no shards sticking up from the part where the 'R' card is placed, thus nothing to endanger someone reaching up through that part (standing on the rungs of the bars on the window below) to undo the latch inside.

Those shards missing from the bottom didn't jump up and out of the bottom frame, they were taken out because they inhibited the ability of Rudy Guede to reach in and undo the latch. That would be an awfully fine detail for an amateur 'stager' to think of... ;-)

The second picture features the damaged frame but the completely undamaged panel. Inside jobbers should also concentrate on how the panel remains undamaged. If the window is held at say a 45 degree angle, the rock must contact the panel. Any greater angle compounds the glass distribution problem, and constrains the swinging against the wardrobe, guaranteeing damage to this panel.