Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kauffer]

Sooooo, how would someone on the ground below in the dark be able to tell they are not locked?

He wouldn't need to be below on the ground. He could easily reach across from the porch to see if they would open.

 

[RWVBWL]

I have read Ron Hendry's book. Unfortunately, Hendry makes it clear he is not impartial and starts from a premise of, suppose the burglary wasn't staged? He then sets out to show that a professional climber can scale the wall, holding onto newly installed window bars.

It's what is called the "halo effect". As a psychology student we were warned not to fall into the trap of setting up an experiment designed to confirm one's own hypothesis.

Hi Vixen,
I am not talking about the articles by Hendry,
I linked the article so you could look at the photographs from down below, (without me having to upload and post them here on The ISF for you), where you seem to think we think someone would have thrown an 8lb rock up into the air to break open Filomena's window.

No one would have,
the rock would have probably hit them in the dark on the 1st or 2nd miss...

Rudy threw that hand sized rock from the edge of the car driveway,
that way he could run and hide in the bushes and see if any lights came on in the bedrooms
or if the front door opened and anyone came out. Who knows, maybe Meredith did?

Of course,
feel free to be skeptical of my opinion!
RW

 

[Grinder]

Do you know the difference between a) the door and window accessible via the balcony and b) Romanelli's window?

I'm talking in terms of the type of glazing (and the associated implications for someone trying to break in), the quality/strength of the frame (and the associated implications for someone trying to break in), and the quality/strength of any locks (and the associated implications for someone trying to break in).

If you can learn and understand these factors, then maybe we can move on to phase two of the discussion of this issue.......

My ESP is kicking in and I predict a lecture on double paned glass coming.

Given that the balcony was at the level of the floor of the second story how could it only be 4-6 feet off the ground?

Is Anglo posting?

 

[Vixen]

This is testimony from the break-in at the law office two weeks prior to the murder, which Guede was caught holding stolen property from:



Seemingly difficult climbs and break-ins seem to follow Guede around despite him not being involved in them. I find that suspicious and notable.

Poor logic. There are dozens of break-ins in Perugia every week. Just because Nina Burleigh implies Rudy was responsible for them all, does not at all prove the burglary at the cottage was not staged.

A friend of mine literally caught a burglar climbing out of his window a few months ago, with his laptops. I don't think it was Rudy, from his appearance, and the fact Rudy is behind bars.

 

[LondonJohn]

Sooooo, how would someone on the ground below in the dark be able to tell they are not locked?

Are you aware that there were two different sets of shutters associated with Romanelli's window - inner shutters and outer shutters?

It's the outer shutters that wouldn't close (let alone lock), owing to warping/swelling of the wood. It's these outer shutters that Romanelli testified to closing (as much as was possible).

It would therefore be clear to anyone standing below that window outside the cottage that the exterior shutters were not locked - since they were incapable of even meeting. Accepted?

It was also easy for someone such as Guede to climb the wall quickly (via the grate over the window below) to pull open the exterior shutters, exposing the window itself (with the interior shutters visible through the window glass).

The interior shutters were lightweight, and primarily intended for privacy/light suppression rather than security. It's also highly likely that Romanelli left these interior shutters not closed properly - something that would have been pretty easy to see by looking through the window from outside. And even if they had been closed properly (and even locked), these interior shutters would have been relatively easy for an intruder to break through.


So....... Guede looks at Romanelli's window and can immediately see that the external shutters are not closed properly. He climbs up quickly and opens the external shutters properly, exposing the window itself. He probably also looks through the window at this point, and sees that the internal shutters are not closed properly either. He drops back to the ground, throws a rock through the window, and retreats to the shadows for a minute or two (to ensure that nobody inside or outside the cottage has been alerted by the sound). He then climbs up again to the sill, picks out enough glass to enable him to reach in with his hand and unlatch the window, he opens the window, and climbs into the room. Once in the room, he pulls the external shutters closed (to the extent that they can be closed) behind him, in order to conceal the broken window from anyone outside the cottage.

As Aleksandr says.......... simples.

 

[Kauffer]

Did the "climbing enthusiast" give up on seeing if he could lob a 9lb rock that high, as it's not in the video?

The forensics and police said the burglary did not happen. You might as well produce a video showing that Rudy could have been fired through the window from a cannon. It doesn't follow that he was.

The police, prosecutors and judges do not agree with you.

Well the judges do. That is, Hellmann and the Marasca court. The rest don't count anymore. Ricciarelli, for example, the next judge after Matteini, stated that it would have been difficult for Spider-Man to make the climb to Romanelli's window. I have lost count how many times he has been proved wrong.

You should think very carefully about your second paragraph. How much of an investigation by "the forensics and police" do you think was carried out into the question of whether or not the burglary happened? Can you cite all the evidence they produced to demonstrate their hypothesis? I'd say it was next to nothing. How would you go about challenging me on that?

Why does the rock need to be thrown from below the window? Why can't it be thrown from the uncovered car port?

 

[LondonJohn]

Poor logic. There are dozens of break-ins in Perugia every week. Just because Nina Burleigh implies Rudy was responsible for them all, does not at all prove the burglary at the cottage was not staged.

A friend of mine literally caught a burglar climbing out of his window a few months ago, with his laptops. I don't think it was Rudy, from his appearance, and the fact Rudy is behind bars.

Huh?

The fact is that Guede was arrested in Milan carrying goods that were stolen from that Law office in Perugia. Guede tried to claim that he'd bought/acquired these goods in Milan (he wasn't even intelligent enough to realise that it would sound a lot more plausible to claim that he'd bought/acquired them in Perugia before leaving for Milan!).

It's therefore entirely reasonable to suppose that a) Guede was lying about how he came by having these goods in his possession, and b) Guede was lying because he had himself burgled the Perugia law office.

And since there were some interesting similarities concerning the topology and the means of ingress between the law office and the cottage, it's also reasonable to believe that this constitutes another strand of evidence linking Guede to the (real) break-in at the cottage on the night of the murder.

 

[RWVBWL]

<snip>

So....... Guede looks at Romanelli's window and can immediately see that the external shutters are not closed properly. He climbs up quickly and opens the external shutters properly, exposing the window itself. He probably also looks through the window at this point, and sees that the internal shutters are not closed properly either. He drops back to the ground, throws a rock through the window, and retreats to the shadows for a minute or two (to ensure that nobody inside or outside the cottage has been alerted by the sound). He then climbs up again to the sill, picks out enough glass to enable him to reach in with his hand and unlatch the window, he opens the window, and climbs into the room. Once in the room, he pulls the external shutters closed (to the extent that they can be closed) behind him, in order to conceal the broken window from anyone outside the cottage.

As Aleksandr says.......... simples.

I have to disagree, LJ.

Why?
Because I believe a rock thrown forward and horizontally would have much more velocity to then damage the window shutter after breaking the glass, than a rock which was thrown overhead which might have gotten lucky, hit and broke the window and then sorta bounced off the shutter, if thrown up from down below.

Have a look at the pics in Hendry's article that i'll link again:
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/RonHendry------2.html

That rock hit the window and shutter wood hard.
And this was an old house, old wood,
the shutter is gonna be hard, not new and a lil' softer
like the last 2"x4"x10'er that I bought 2 days ago at Home Depot in Marina Del Rey...
+
I just can't see Rudy dancin' around below,
dodging the fallin' rock if he missed the shot agian and again in the dark...
RW

 

[Vixen]

Are you aware that there were two different sets of shutters associated with Romanelli's window - inner shutters and outer shutters?

It's the outer shutters that wouldn't close (let alone lock), owing to warping/swelling of the wood. It's these outer shutters that Romanelli testified to closing (as much as was possible).

It would therefore be clear to anyone standing below that window outside the cottage that the exterior shutters were not locked - since they were incapable of even meeting. Accepted?

It was also easy for someone such as Guede to climb the wall quickly (via the grate over the window below) to pull open the exterior shutters, exposing the window itself (with the interior shutters visible through the window glass).

The interior shutters were lightweight, and primarily intended for privacy/light suppression rather than security. It's also highly likely that Romanelli left these interior shutters not closed properly - something that would have been pretty easy to see by looking through the window from outside. And even if they had been closed properly (and even locked), these interior shutters would have been relatively easy for an intruder to break through.


So....... Guede looks at Romanelli's window and can immediately see that the external shutters are not closed properly. He climbs up quickly and opens the external shutters properly, exposing the window itself. He probably also looks through the window at this point, and sees that the internal shutters are not closed properly either. He drops back to the ground, throws a rock through the window, and retreats to the shadows for a minute or two (to ensure that nobody inside or outside the cottage has been alerted by the sound). He then climbs up again to the sill, picks out enough glass to enable him to reach in with his hand and unlatch the window, he opens the window, and climbs into the room. Once in the room, he pulls the external shutters closed (to the extent that they can be closed) behind him, in order to conceal the broken window from anyone outside the cottage. As Aleksandr says.......... simples.

This is not satisfactory. It is post hoc thinking based on the police confirming the burglary was staged (for example, glass on top of the ransacked clothes, indicating the ransack came first [ remember: the police see a lot of staged burglaries and staged scenarios {think Tracey Andrews who killed her boyfriend, and then pretended a roadrager did it}]).


You have decided you can demonstrate to the police it might have been a burglary, from the comfort of your armchair.

 

[Kauffer]

Poor logic. There are dozens of break-ins in Perugia every week. Just because Nina Burleigh implies Rudy was responsible for them all, does not at all prove the burglary at the cottage was not staged.

A friend of mine literally caught a burglar climbing out of his window a few months ago, with his laptops. I don't think it was Rudy, from his appearance, and the fact Rudy is behind bars.

But don't you think that since we know that Guede was all over and inside Meredith and that there's no evidence that anyone else was in the room when she was killed AND he is a burglar AND the distribution of glass in Romanelli's room is not consistent with a staging, that we might be on to something here when we say nobody else was involved and that it really was a real break in?

How does the glass get sprayed across Romanelli's room from the window towards the door, consistent with the impact of an object thrown from the outside but not consistent with one thrown from the inside?

 

[LondonJohn]

Did the "climbing enthusiast" give up on seeing if he could lob a 9lb rock that high, as it's not in the video?

The forensics and police said the burglary did not happen. You might as well produce a video showing that Rudy could have been fired through the window from a cannon. It doesn't follow that he was.

The police, prosecutors and judges do not agree with you.

I think you'll find that the Supreme Court does agree with Grinder - you'll see it in black and white in the motivations report when it comes out. Hellmann also agreed that the break-in was real.

And bear in mind with your appeals to authority that "the police, prosecutors and (some) judges" also said that there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Knox and Sollecito participated in the murder of Meredith Kercher. Their collective misjudgement has fortunately been blasted out of the water by saner minds within the Supreme Court. And it's always been clear to anyone with access to the information and a sceptical, rational mind that there never was a single piece of credible, reliable evidence that linked Knox or Sollecito to the murder.

The police, prosecutors and (some) judges have shown themselves very publicly to have been incompetent, confirmation-biased, too proud to admit shortcomings, and all-in-all unfit for purpose in regard to the trial process of Knox and Sollecito. You really need to think twice before citing their views and judgements to support any particular position........

 

[Kauffer]

This is not satisfactory. It is post hoc thinking based on the police confirming the burglary was staged (for example, glass on top of the ransacked clothes, indicating the ransack came first [ remember: the police see a lot of staged burglarys and staged scenarios {think Tracey Adams who killed her boyfriend, and then pretended a roadrager did it}]).


You have decided you can demonstrate to the police it might have been a burglary, from the comfort of your armchair.

How many times does it need to be pointed out to you that the testimony in court from more than one witness was that glass wasn't just on top of clothes? It was under clothes and it was on the floor. The real issue is the distribution of the glass in the room. That is, to be clear, the glass was broken from the outside in and this is demonstrated by its penetration all the way from the window towards the door. This cannot be achieved by throwing the rock at the window from the inside with the window open against the open shutter.

 

[Vixen]

I think you'll find that the Supreme Court does agree with Grinder - you'll see it in black and white in the motivations report when it comes out. Hellmann also agreed that the break-in was real.

And bear in mind with your appeals to authority that "the police, prosecutors and (some) judges" also said that there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Knox and Sollecito participated in the murder of Meredith Kercher. Their collective misjudgement has fortunately been blasted out of the water by saner minds within the Supreme Court. And it's always been clear to anyone with access to the information and a sceptical, rational mind that there never was a single piece of credible, reliable evidence that linked Knox or Sollecito to the murder.

The police, prosecutors and (some) judges have shown themselves very publicly to have been incompetent, confirmation-biased, too proud to admit shortcomings, and all-in-all unfit for purpose in regard to the trial process of Knox and Sollecito. You really need to think twice before citing their views and judgements to support any particular position........

What do you mean, "Hellmann agreed the break-in was real"? Wasn't his MR rudely spiked by SC and his career cut very short? I'll come back to Hellmann, as promised, when I've finished reading it.

However, I doubt it was his place to say the crime did not happen.

 

[LondonJohn]

This is not satisfactory. It is post hoc thinking based on the police confirming the burglary was staged (for example, glass on top of the ransacked clothes, indicating the ransack came first [ remember: the police see a lot of staged burglarys and staged scenarios {think Tracey Adams who killed her boyfriend, and then pretended a roadrager did it}]).


You have decided you can demonstrate to the police it might have been a burglary, from the comfort of your armchair.

It's nothing of the sort. By-the-by, I don't think you know what post hoc thinking actually means.

What it is, though, is a plausible narrative that fits the evidence (and lack of evidence) exactly.

Now, it may be that a freak localised hurricane gust blew open the outer shutters, that an obese pigeon flew straight into the glass, and that the rock teleported itself onto Romanelli's bedroom floor. It may also be that someone (whether Knox, Sollecito, Guede or anyone else) staged a break-in by retrieving a rock from outside, taking care to break the glass from the outside pane inwards (by holding the window open at 90 degrees), taking care to dent the outer facing surface of the interior shutter, taking care to distribute glass deep into Romanelli's room, taking care to work through the likely trajectory of the rock post-impact to place it in the correct position at rest, and taking care to track some of the glass back into Kercher's room.

The lower courts erroneously believed that the only narrative which fit the evidence (and lack of evidence) was the one where Knox and Sollecito staged the break-in. Of course, these same people had already come to the erroneous conclusion that plenty of other evidence proved Knox's/Sollecito's participation in the murder, so the staging element pretty much had to be adopted. If you're looking for true post hoc reasoning, that would be a pretty good place to start

 

[Vixen]

How many times does it need to be pointed out to you that the testimony in court from more than one witness was that glass wasn't just on top of clothes? It was under clothes and it was on the floor. The real issue is the distribution of the glass in the room. That is, to be clear, the glass was broken from the outside in and this is demonstrated by its penetration all the way from the window towards the door. This cannot be achieved by throwing the rock at the window from the inside with the window open against the open shutter.

There was no glass found on the ground outside, which is what you would expect.

Also, there was no need for a rock of that size or weight. It's the sort of monstrous thing you might see in an Oscar Wilde farce.

 

[Kauffer]

What do you mean, "Hellmann agreed the break-in was real"? Wasn't his MR rudely spiked by SC and his career cut very short? I'll come back to Hellmann, as promised, when I've finished reading it.

However, I doubt it was his place to say the crime did not happen.

Actually, that's quite interesting. Hellmann, for standing up for evidence and justice and acquitting Amanda and Raffaele found himself sent to Coventry by his colleagues. Now, I don't know what that tells you, but it tells me that the club of judges thought that clubability meant something different from fairly and honestly and independently considering the case with an open mind without fear or favour.

That's all changed now. It was certainly his place to say that the crime did not happen.

 

[LondonJohn]

What do you mean, "Hellmann agreed the break-in was real"? Wasn't his MR rudely spiked by SC and his career cut very short? I'll come back to Hellmann, as promised, when I've finished reading it.

However, I doubt it was his place to say the crime did not happen.

Still with the appeals to authority eh?!

Well if you insist on ploughing that furrow, I'll trump everything you have by telling you that the Supreme Court in 2015 - which is now the definitive, final ruling on this case - decided that the break-in was real.

By the way, I wish you were able to tell me and others just how/why/when you formulated your views and position on this case. You're coming up with plenty of things that have been pro-guilt talking points for years now. I'm assuming that you've at least been following the online debate very closely indeed for some time now, if not also participating in it. It would certainly be interesting and instructive to know just exactly how you've reached your current standpoint, but that's obviously (and rightly) your prerogative.

 

[carbonjam72]

All Aligned: Dent on wooden shutter, embedded glass shard, and end point rock

I have to disagree, LJ.

Why?
Because I believe a rock thrown forward and horizontally would have much more velocity to then damage the window shutter after breaking the glass, than a rock which might have gotten lucky and hit and broke the window if thrown from down below.

Have a look at the pics in Hendry's article that i'll link again:
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/RonHendry------2.html

That rock hit the window and shutter wood hard.
+
I just can't see Rudy dancin' around below,
dodging the fallin' rock if he missed the shot agian and again in the dark...
RW

Looking at the dentted inner wooden shutter, it has a dent on the right side of the indentation, then to the left, it takes out a long piece of wood, as though its thrown downwards from the driveway into the window on the near side.

Following that same trajectory, is the embedded glass shard in the inner wooden shutter, again, on a line movement from the carpark outside.

And finally, note the end position of the rock inside the room. All in a consistent line if thrown from the driveway/carpark side, thrown level and downwards.

The shutters had to be full open. I think I saw it mentioned, that Rudy could reach the shutter from the car park itself to open them up. Which actually makes sense, since he would only have to open one shutter to throw the rock through the window. If the far side was closed, then Rudy had to throw the rock through the near side of the window.

Rudy could already scoot from the driveway more easily, if someone were alerted by the breaking glass.

Just saying its a clean scenario, consistent with the physical evidence of the dented shutter, the embedded glass shard, and the end point of the thrown rock inside the bedroom. As well as the logic of leaving the scene right after the rock toss, to make sure no one was around, or alerted by the breaking glass, and that the coast was clear. Same MO from his other break-in at the law office 2 weeks earlier.

The glass was scattered consistent with this scenario, and the claim of 'glass on top of clothes' has been discredited as one more lie from the prosecution. Discredited by Filomena's conflicting accounts and her own conduct in disturbing the scene, and by the crime scene photos that showed the claim to be false.

Break-in was real. Any doubts, just ask Rudy. His whereabouts are known.

 

[LondonJohn]

There was no glass found on the ground outside, which is what you would expect.

There was no proper search done for glass on the ground outside (especially not for the sorts of very small particles that one would expect to see rebounding backwards that far when a rock is thrown through thin single-pane glass). I'm guessing you've seen the photos of police using that exact area to smoke and make phone calls? I'm also guessing (OK - hoping) that you've seen the risible testimony about this issue given by the police in court.

Also, there was no need for a rock of that size or weight. It's the sort of monstrous thing you might see in an Oscar Wilde farce.

Ummmmmm...... a 9lb (c4.2kg) rock is not "monstrous". To use such a hyperbolic term does your argument no credit whatsoever. It's certainly quite heavy, but at the same time it's easily capable of being thrown with the required accuracy by a fit, athletic young man. You may also be erroneously assuming that Guede would have elected to choose this rock despite the presence of other, less weighty rocks. By contrast, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the ground around the cottage did not throw up all that many suitable candidate rocks. Guede might have preferred a lighter rock (though obviously a small stone would have been inappropriate), but perhaps that was all he could find.

 

[RWVBWL]

There was no glass found on the ground outside, which is what you would expect.

Also, there was no need for a rock of that size or weight. It's the sort of monstrous thing you might see in an Oscar Wilde farce.

Throw a rock upwards, hope it hits, dodge it if it does not.
Do it again, if it hits, you'll probably have some glass fall down on you.

Throw a hand sized 8lb/9lb rock hard, straight and horizontal and that rock'll smash the glass, hit the wood a fraction of a second later and the glass will shatter all about inside the room, not down below, as the forward momentum has pushed the shutter open inside the room at the same time.

Do your own tests,
you'll see what I mean.
RW