Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kauffer]

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.

You see, this is your modus operandi vixen. You make claims in a post. These claims are challenged. You then are asked to respond to the challenge made. But you don't. You move on to something else and you try to deflect.

So, tell me the totality of the investigation carried out into the question of the burglary. Point me to the evidence uncovered in the course of that investigation in the form of documents, visual record, testimony etc.

As to your first sentence. Who looked? How did they look? Was there a grid search? A walking line of officers? Are there photographs and video?

But why would I necessarily expect to find glass under the window?

What else was there to this investigation into the burglary?

While you're about it, perhaps I'll let you tell me with reference to actual documented evidence the size and weight of the rock you seem so obsessed with.

 

[Matthew Best]

You keep asking questions, and don't answer any yourself.

This is very familiar behaviour to anyone who's spent any time on the 9/11 sub-forum. It's known there as JAQing off.

 

[Strozzi]

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?

Grinder, let me suggest what you already know. The house is built into the side of a hill. On several sides of the structure the ground slopes downhill. Could it be that at some location the balcony is 4-6 feet above ground?

 

[acbytesla]

The point is, the pair switched their phones off for the evening, yet the pings were still pinging. Otherwise, how did Raf's 11:00pm message from Dad come through as soon as he switched the phone on?

Clear now?

Wrong. It doesn't work that way. If you turn off your phone you are blind to the network and the network is blind to you. If your phone is not connecting to a tower either because because there is an obstruction or you are to far away, it APPEARS exactly the same as if you powered your phone down. And according to Dr. Pellero's report there are several spots in Raffaele's apartment where there is NO SERVICE.

So, there is NO WAY to differentiate between no reception to the tower or powered off.

Raffaele would receive the text as soon as the phone reconnected to the network. ie: the moment it reached a spot in his apartment which had a signal or turning on a phone in a spot that had service.

 

[Grinder]

Grinder, let me suggest what you already know. The house is built into the side of a hill. On several sides of the structure the ground slopes downhill. Could it be that at some location the balcony is 4-6 feet above ground?

What do you think?

ETA using PGP calculations I'd say about 15' off the ground

 

[Strozzi]

You see, this is your modus operandi vixen. You make claims in a post. These claims are challenged. You then are asked to respond to the challenge made. But you don't. You move on to something else and you try to deflect.

So, tell me the totality of the investigation carried out into the question of the burglary. Point me to the evidence uncovered in the course of that investigation in the form of documents, visual record, testimony etc.

As to your first sentence. Who looked? How did they look? Was there a grid search? A walking line of officers? Are there photographs and video?

But why would I necessarily expect to find glass under the window?

What else was there to this investigation into the burglary?

While you're about it, perhaps I'll let you tell me with reference to actual documented evidence the size and weight of the rock you seem so obsessed with.

Vixen, what would be appropriate techniques for investigators to use to search the ground beneath a broken window to determine if glass had fallen along the outside of the building? After you answer that, please tell me if the police uses such techniques. And tell me how you know it.

If I were a police investigator looking beneath a broken window to see if broken glass had fallen to the ground, I would do several things. I would photograph the area from a distance and then upclose many times. I would mark off sections of ground directly beneath the window and sections to each side, and do the same for sections a few feet back from the wall of the house, and then another row of sections even further back from the wall of the house. I would then put on rubber gloves to provide some protection to my hands and to avoid contaminating any piece or shard of glass I find. I might run my hand slowly through the leaves or grass or plants as I look, and I might repeat it with a bright flashlight to see if anything reflects. I might take sheets of tack paper and press it down firmly on the ground or perhaps drag it through the groundcover, looking at it every foot to see if it had picked up any glass splinters, chips, or larger fragments.

None of this is complex. None of this requires special equipment not commonly available to most anyone. Was any of this done by the Perugia police or Stefanoni's team?

I might even ask a forensic investigator what to do, seeing as how I have no experience with investigating a serious rime scene what involves broken glass.

 

[Strozzi]

[qimg]http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/images/e/e7/Cottage_From_Road.jpg[/qimg]

What do you think?

ETA using PGP calculations I'd say about 15' off the ground

You have proven that the distance from the ground to the balcony is much more than 4 - 6 feet. You have shown me that it would not be easy to access the balcony from the ground. I think I might climb up the window bars on the window below Filomena's window and then hoist myself up there - if I were a young, trim, athletic kind of guy. Especially if that area at ground level is out of open sight.

 

[Vixen]

Wrong. It doesn't work that way. If you turn off your phone you are blind to the network and the network is blind to you. If your phone is not connecting to a tower either because because there is an obstruction or you are to far away, it APPEARS exactly the same as if you powered your phone down. And according to Dr. Pellero's report there are several spots in Raffaele's apartment where there is NO SERVICE.

So, there is NO WAY to differentiate between no reception to the tower or powered off.

Raffaele would receive the text as soon as the phone reconnected to the network. ie: the moment it reached a spot in his apartment which had a signal or turning on a phone in a spot that had service.

Not so. Switching off your phone is not enough.

This article here helps explain, in a different context.

http://www.travelandleisure.com/articles/how-to-prevent-cell-phone-roaming-fees

 

[Vixen]

You have proven that the distance from the ground to the balcony is much more than 4 - 6 feet. You have shown me that it would not be easy to access the balcony from the ground. I think I might climb up the window bars on the window below Filomena's window and then hoist myself up there - if I were a young, trim, athletic kind of guy. Especially if that area at ground level is out of open sight.

OK. I was looking at the building by the main entrance.

It is a moot point anyway. The fact Rudy had a stolen laptop in Milan, doesn't prove he had high wall climbing skills or that is what happened here.

 

[Kaosium]

Not so. Switching off your phone is not enough.

This article here helps explain, in a different context.

http://www.travelandleisure.com/articles/how-to-prevent-cell-phone-roaming-fees

You've not read Massei, have you?

Psst. There's discussion of this in there.

 

[Kauffer]

OK. I was looking at the building by the main entrance.

It is a moot point anyway. The fact Rudy had a stolen laptop in Milan, doesn't prove he had high wall climbing skills or that is what happened here.

Well, there's no proof of anyone else in the cottage that night other than Meredith and we have a broken window with a glass distribution pattern supporting the glass being broken by an object thrown from the outside in. There's also a rock. Given these facts, how do you think Rudy got inside?

 

[Kauffer]

Not so. Switching off your phone is not enough.

This article here helps explain, in a different context.

http://www.travelandleisure.com/articles/how-to-prevent-cell-phone-roaming-fees

Which part of this are you citing? What do you think it explains?

 

[JREF2010]

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.

1)The shutters were closed per Filomena, yet its that window Rudy supposedly looked out and saw the Amanda Silhouette leaving. (Nov 19,2009) What other window would he view the driveway exit?

2)Rudy contradicts himself, saying there was no break in, inside or out, that he and Meredith had looked in all the rooms. (German Diary).
So he contradicts himself in being able to see Amandas silhouette leaving the driveway through the window, due to the shutters being closed as Filomena said.

Some have said Rudys a great liar, but hes not really very good. Rudy is a failure, in about everything he does including lying.

The only people Rudy really fooled was Migninni and his system loyalists.

 

[bagels]

OK. I was looking at the building by the main entrance.

It is a moot point anyway. The fact Rudy had a stolen laptop in Milan, doesn't prove he had high wall climbing skills or that is what happened here.

Well I guess this is simply where we disagree. I personally find it striking that Rudy Guede is linked by significant criminal evidence to two separate break-ins within walking distance of his house that both involve very difficult climbs up high walls to rock smashed second floor windows, in the time span of two weeks, and that the common factor could be something other than him participating in both break-ins.

The evidence at the cottage clearly demonstrates Rudy Guede killed and sexually assaulted Meredith Kercher. The most reasonable method of entry is the apparent break-in in Filomena's room. The corroborative value of the law office crime establishing Rudy's break-in MO is simply icing on the cake IMO. In fact I would say its main value is demonstrating the unreasonableness of PGP who discount it instantly as totally irrelevant while they go on about Amanda's April Fools prank, noise ticket, or creative writing exercises etc.

 

[Dan O.]

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

Or even easier, use the old mop that's sticking out of the bucket right there on the porch.

 

[analemma]

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.

The police, prosecutors and judges are a tight nit, inbred group of liars who for SEVEN YEARS tried to save themselves from admitting the truth about how incompetent and corrupt they are by lying and finding "judicial truths" in an obsessed witch hunt against two obviously, and proven innocent, college kids.
Since you seem bound to ignoring the obvious truth about the brake in and instead depend upon "judicial truths" that do not require explaination, I put you in the same category as them

 

[Grinder]

The video clearly shows that the distance from the lower windows bottom sill to the top windows bottom sill is easily reach by the climber and young man of average height. It is not a high wall climb. If the climb were from the ground that would be a different story. Perhaps the next excuse will be looking at the wall upside down.

The climb to F's window wasn't difficult and obviously could easily be done. Even if the break-in were shown to be fake, there is no credible time line having the kids involved.

 

[Dan O.]

<snip>
. 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).

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.

I think you are both wrong, or both partially right..

From the 5-chan video of climber we see that there is a slope on the other side of the retaining wall for the car park area. A rock thrown from this slope has the advantage that it is slightly closer to the window offsetting the disadvantage of being slightly lower. The thrower is far enough away from the window to not worry about rebounds and falling glass and still has the advantage being mostly below the retaining wall and out of sight from both the road and the occupants of the house.

However, Rudy could have chosen any of these positions. It is not necessary that he chooses the best option, only that options we consider are consistent with the evidence. We may be able to solve this dilemma With a physics model. There are constraints on the path and velocity of the rock which may rule out one or more of the options.

 

[Dan O.]

<snip>
. 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).

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.

I think you are both wrong, or both partially right..

From the 5-chan video of climber we see that there is a slope on the other side of the retaining wall for the car park area. A rock thrown from this slope has the advantage that it is slightly closer to the window offsetting the disadvantage of being slightly lower. The thrower is far enough away from the window to not worry about rebounds and falling glass and still has the advantage being mostly below the retaining wall and out of sight from both the road and the occupants of the house.

However, Rudy could have chosen any of these positions. It is not necessary that he chooses the best option, only that options we consider are consistent with the evidence. We may be able to solve this dilemma With a physics model. There are constraints on the path and velocity of the rock which may rule out one or more of the options.

 

[Samson]

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

This is one exercise where I consider Hendry erred, to grasp the corner of the dwelling only, would result in plummeting to the ground, but the rough roof tiles were able to be grasped when standing on the planter box, especially if standing on the rock for extra height.