Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Desert Fox]

This is absurd. No matter where the "thrower" was standing, the glass would not have flown behind them, several feet into the room.

Along with the super ability to go without sleep, that witch Amanda has the ability to violate physics. . . .Did medieval Italy burn witches or boil them in oil?

 

[Dougm]

I'm saying I don't know (for certain). I have reason to believe it was the prosecution, but nothing definitive and must admit it would explain some things if in fact it was Massei who concocted that theory. At the same time it would likely make the prosecution look all sorts of stupid, because one thing I do know is they tried to present 'evidence' that there wasn't any glass outside beneath the window and that the outer shutters were closed at the time the window was broken. That would mean they still had the rock being thrown from the inside, but it would almost certainly be a less probable scenario than Massei's easily disproven one (glass shards on the blue rug) and might even be that Raffaele and or Amanda threw the rock the other way through the window....

Yes, except their idea of "evidence" does not consist of pictures, or pieces of glass collected from the dirt, or anything concrete.

Anyway you look at it, their theories trying to explain how the evidence is consistent with a staging require multiple hoop jumping, to try to reconcile their staging theory with the facts.

 

[Kaosium]

Platonov and Massei seem to have solved the enigma some years ago.
The rock was thrown from the outer side if the panel through the glass and against the inner wooden panel towards the inside of the room. If the thrower was standing inside the room and sticking an arm or was standing outside in the garden, this I can't tell.
Something I can tell is that the rock has bowled on top of the clothes scattered on the floor.

Machiavelli, what was the prosecution theory on the breaking of the glass?

 

[Machiavelli]

All you wrote here is maybe it was staged. . . .You do not convict on maybe.

The data that is evidence of staging is 14 points that I listed a few pages ago.
But something you maybe don't understand, is that it's not enough to pick up points in isolation and say "this maybe has an innocent explanation". It's not enough to make an argument. You don't get rid of circumstantial evidence that way, those are nor arguments.

 

[Machiavelli]

This is absurd. No matter where the "thrower" was standing, the glass would not have flown behind them, several feet into the room.

Behind?

Nobody throws a rock at himself, not even a stager.

 

[Machiavelli]

I will take that as "No, I have no experimental data but I cannot admit that."

You would be a denier.

 

[Dougm]

The data that is evidence of staging is 14 points that I listed a few pages ago.
But something you maybe don't understand, is that it's not enough to pick up points in isolation and say "this maybe has an innocent explanation". It's not enough to make an argument. You don't get rid of circumstantial evidence that way, those are nor arguments.

Yes, it is not fair to argue away 14 points of evidence by picking at one point in isolation.

However, it IS fair to point out how almost all of your 14 points are either inaccurate, assumptions, and "probables" that don't seem probable to anyone except those who decided on who was guilty before they reviewed the evidence.

The problem with the pro-guilt argument, as Judge Hellman rightly pointed out, is that you can't take a bunch of weak, disputed points, then stack them all up on each other and try to make one strong point. Especially when many of them depend on the others to be true to even make a little bit of sense. It's a house of cards, and the cards are made of very thin paper.

 

[Dougm]

Behind?

Nobody throws a rock at himself, not even a stager.

Exactly. But they would have to for the glass to have ended up where it ended up.

 

[anglolawyer]

Platonov and Massei seem to have solved the enigma some years ago.
The rock was thrown from the outer side if the panel through the glass and against the inner wooden panel towards the inside of the room. If the thrower was standing inside the room and sticking an arm or was standing outside in the garden, this I can't tell.
Something I can tell is that the rock has bowled on top of the clothes scattered on the floor.

Gee, you think this might have happened? Wow. I am adding this to your idea they ran out immediately after the murder with Amanda bearing a wound that did not bleed immediately but only seeped (thus explaining no blood in the bedroom but crime-related deposits elsewhere) and your fish dinner theory. These, along with your 'I was there, I can't deny it' retraction and 'she was strongly suspected' admission, show there is still hope for you yet.

I have a long memory btw. These things will not be forgotten.

 

[Planigale]

Platonov and Massei seem to have solved the enigma some years ago.
The rock was thrown from the outer side if the panel through the glass and against the inner wooden panel towards the inside of the room. If the thrower was standing inside the room and sticking an arm or was standing outside in the garden, this I can't tell.
Something I can tell is that the rock has bowled on top of the clothes scattered on the floor.

There is no position that one could stand in the room throw a rock and get the distribution of glass fragments seen, the impacted fragment on the inner shutter, and have the stone end up where it does. Yet all these things occur if the stone is thrown from the outside.

 

[Planigale]

There is no position that one could stand in the room throw a rock and get the distribution of glass fragments seen, the impacted fragment on the inner shutter, and have the stone end up where it does. Yet all these things occur if the stone is thrown from the outside.

BTW It is not only where the glass fragments are but also where they are not.

 

[Samson]

Behind?

Nobody throws a rock at himself, not even a stager.

Mach, you seem to allow that the rock could have been thrown from outside by the two, Raf presumably, before fleeing the scene. I would agree this is good common ground from which to progress, as the inside job is completely impossible, and I sense you concede on this point.

 

[codyjuneau]

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.

.
I Guess Rudy's rock/climb/window MO was developed while he was just an amateur. Once he turned pro he had to change his MO and enter through the front door like a respectable burglar. It must be a Mafia rule. Is it considered amateur or pro to leave a calling card floating in the toilet?

Cody
.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

A positive TMB test

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.

tsig,

There is some reason to believe that blood was present in this vicinity. IIRC Rep. 199 was positive by TMB. Months later Stefanoni tested it with a confirmatory test, which was negative. This was either lazy or purposefully stupid.

 

[codyjuneau]

.
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.

.
That is true, they would not close enough to latch.

Cody
.

 

[Bill Williams]

Gee, you think this might have happened? Wow. I am adding this to your idea they ran out immediately after the murder with Amanda bearing a wound that did not bleed immediately but only seeped (thus explaining no blood in the bedroom but crime-related deposits elsewhere) and your fish dinner theory. These, along with your 'I was there, I can't deny it' retraction and 'she was strongly suspected' admission, show there is still hope for you yet.

I have a long memory btw. These things will not be forgotten.

According to Machiavelli, he's now denying that Knox was ever just "strongly suspected". He arguing a new theory, that there is no one moment when someone moves from being not suspected to being suspected.

All this despite Mignini telling Drew Griffin that as soon as Knox implicated Lumumba because she imagined she was at the cottage, that they had to stop the interrogation. ....

..... despite Mignini continuing as if only a notary.

Machiavelli detests people with long memories.

 

[Desert Fox]

You would be a denier.

Others addressed you fourteen points but you are not even making any sense here?

 

[carbonjam72]

tsig,

There is some reason to believe that blood was present in this vicinity. IIRC Rep. 199 was positive by TMB. Months later Stefanoni tested it with a confirmatory test, which was negative. This was either lazy or purposefully stupid.

Chris, can you explain this a bit.

Does blood lose its testing validity over time? Or, is a TMB positive still not enough to say a sample is blood without a further confirmatory test?

If that's not the case, then why would you say it still might have been blood, after stef's negative test? What's going on here?

Could stef have got her notes mixed up again? Was the sample double tested, or is that not the practice with simple stains?

What makes you think it still might have been blood, and what did stef do that could have concealed or botched that confirmatory test in the lab, or caused it to fail?

 

[Desert Fox]

I thought this is interesting
http://forums.officer.com/t140220/

9. I always knock first. If you answer, I'll ask for directions somewhere or offer to clean your gutters. (Don't take me up on it.)

16. I'll break a window to get in, even if it makes a little noise. If your neighbor hears one loud sound, he'll stop what he's doing and wait to hear it again. If he doesn't hear it again, he'll just go back to what he was doing. It's human nature.

Edit: Also this
http://forensicoutreach.com/the-window-of-opportunity-how-criminals-get-inside-your-house/

Profiling the average intruder

With a few key exceptions, the average burglar is likely to be someone who is fairly desperate: in short, they might be desperate to fund their drug addiction, get a loan shark off their back, or fund a criminal lifestyle. This profile — though perhaps overly simplistic — remains tremendously useful, because it means that your typical burglar is an opportunist, and is also ill-equipped to deal with any proper security measures. Due to their circumstances, they will be forced to use improvised tools and a desperate (and therefore sloppy) approach may leave excellent forensic evidence, which of course, is useful to us.

Sounds like somebody we know?


More brute force methods include the obvious brick through the window. The advantage for the thief here is that he doesn’t have to carry anything to the crime scene; a rock from the victim’s own patio is commonly used. The disadvantage is of course the noise made.

 

[Machiavelli]

tsig,

There is some reason to believe that blood was present in this vicinity. IIRC Rep. 199 was positive by TMB. Months later Stefanoni tested it with a confirmatory test, which was negative. This was either lazy or purposefully stupid.

You perfectly know that no evidence of Rudy Guede was found in Fulonena's room, even if Stefanoni performed all tests on items and spots indicated by defence requests. This happened on Dec. 17th And 18th, when Stefanoni's team was in Perugia again for the second session.