The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 29

[bagels]

Do you think 'Free Rudy Guede' was Rudy himself?

It was me, sorry.

 

[Stacyhs]

What vexes me the most is why Rudy would want to implicate someone as being downstairs in the first place if he wasn't there himself. Rudy's first mention of noises downstairs came from his prison diary in 2007 when he may have been trying to implicate one of the boys who rented the apartments. It resurfaces again in his March 26 2008 statement but by that time the boys would have had their alibis well and truly established, so he is obviously trying to suggest K&S were downstairs while he was tending to Meredith. However, in Rudy's own heroic narrative of events he doesn't suggest that K&S went downstairs when he was preoccupied with Meredith. There is nothing to be gained by suggesting that anyone was downstairs in the slightest. I don't see what leverage the claim would have in implicating anyone else in the crime.

I must admit I was a bit freaked out when I saw the blood on the steps in the video, some of the circular traces seem to be over 8cm wide in some cases. How can it maintain a circular shape like that without dispersing? Or is that not blood I'm looking at. Bonassi's room is a mess, he said it was "perfect" so why would he lie? His duvet is totally tossed about, can a cat do that?

I'm equally perplexed also by Ricardo's room. The guys pissed on his floor but there is an outline left that is noticeable in 18:31:24 that is undoubtedly red. So it seems to me that the guys pissed on the floor and either the cat or Rudy bled on the still wet urine with the blood dispersing to the edges as the urine dried resulting in the odd linear markings much the same as the steps. There is also what appears to be blood drops in frame 18:30:31. Position 18:32:27 shows the door has been kicked in to gain access, you can briefly see it earlier at 18:30:03. So if it is blood on the floor as I suspect, the cat must have booted in the door and bled on the urine. Either that or what I'm looking at isn't blood. If it's red and it isn't blood, what is it?

Hoots

I've searched through Guede's diary and can no mention of hearing a noise downstairs. Do you have a source for this?

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Rudy_Guede's_Prison_Diary_(Translated)

Second highlight: Agreed. I see no advantage for him doing this. By March, he certainly understands about DNA profiling, etc.

I was looking at the video of some blood droplet collection in the upstairs apartment. I noticed the droplet had very clear contained borders but after the collection, it had been smeared to where it looked like it had spread out. Look at about 18:12 to 18:29
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/crime-scene-videos/

I was also shocked to see the tech use the same swab to collect from distinctly different droplets. S/he first swabs one drop, then the other, then goes back to the first drop and swabs it again and then goes to the second drop and swabs it yet again! What if these had been droplets from 2 people? Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy work.

 

[TruthCalls]

Erm, will you please stop using elementary logic and solid reasoning in your arguments on this matter. It's perfectly obvious (using bizarro-world rules) that any rational person would have used that chair in front of the bath, rather than stand on the higher and closer-to-the-window bath rim itself, in order to look out onto a car park that it was impossible to see whether one was standing on the bath or the chair.

Do keep up

My bad. I have NO idea what I was thinking...

 

[Stacyhs]

Which car park? The one Guede supposedly threw the rock from.

FTFY.

For goodness sake, BiWi has reproduced the photo of the barred window below Filomena's room often enough. (=That small window is the boys' bathroom.) It does indeed look towards the car park but being spilt level you probably would need to stand on a chair to look into the car park, it being semi-basement.

Oh, yes...the one you said didn't have any bars. For goodness sake, as I didn't know the downstairs floor plan, I did not know it was the bathroom window. No way could you see anything but the side and maybe the top edge of the car park from it.

 

[Bill Williams]

Which car park? The one Guede supposedly threw the rock from.

For goodness sake, BiWi has reproduced the photo of the barred window below Filomena's room often enough. (=That small window is the boys' bathroom.) It does indeed look towards the car park but being spilt level you probably would need to stand on a chair to look into the car park, it being semi-basement.

Apparently not nearly enough.



BTW Vixen, please answer the question. Why do you still claim the Italian Supreme Court has no right to evaluate evidence, when you (wrongly) claim that the 2013 Chieffi panel annulled the Conti-Vecchiotti report?

 

[LondonJohn]

It was me, sorry.

No, I'm "Free Rudy Guede"

 

[LondonJohn]

Apparently not nearly enough.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_53971524324c05488e.jpg[/qimg]

BTW Vixen, please answer the question. Why do you still claim the Italian Supreme Court has no right to evaluate evidence, when you (wrongly) claim that the 2013 Chieffi panel annulled the Conti-Vecchiotti report?

Ah, we've already established that Vixen does not know:

1) the difference between a) evidence entered into courts, and b) verdicts delivered by courts (including the reasonings underpinning those verdicts);and

2) what the actual remit of the Italian Supreme Court is.

So I'd say the chances of you receiving a factually-correct - let alone logically-correct - answer to your question are fairly low. We shall see.


But this also gives me the opportunity to ask Vixen (once again) to produce the evidence - the reliable and properly-sourced evidence, that is - supporting her claim that the Knox family engaged in a "$2 million PR campaign".

Because, as Vixen herself proudly lectured us, she ONLY ever bases her claims on hard facts and impeccable sources. So, by her own measure, she surely must be able easily to produce either or both of those things, at the click of her fingers in effect, in response to a request to do so.

Yet, despite probably a dozen requests to that effect over the past week or so, Vixen has yet to pony up the evidence. I find that *interesting*.......

 

[Stacyhs]

You're being generous, LJ. We've also established that Vixen doesn't know that.....oh, hell...the list is just too long.

 

[Stacyhs]

Ah, we've already established that Vixen does not know:

1) the difference between a) evidence entered into courts, and b) verdicts delivered by courts (including the reasonings underpinning those verdicts);and

2) what the actual remit of the Italian Supreme Court is.

So I'd say the chances of you receiving a factually-correct - let alone logically-correct - answer to your question are fairly low. We shall see.


But this also gives me the opportunity to ask Vixen (once again) to produce the evidence - the reliable and properly-sourced evidence, that is - supporting her claim that the Knox family engaged in a "$2 million PR campaign".

Because, as Vixen herself proudly lectured us, she ONLY ever bases her claims on hard facts and impeccable sources. So, by her own measure, she surely must be able easily to produce either or both of those things, at the click of her fingers in effect, in response to a request to do so.

Yet, despite probably a dozen requests to that effect over the past week or so, Vixen has yet to pony up the evidence. I find that *interesting*.......

And she won't. This is how the game is played:

1. Vixen makes a claim.
2. She is asked for evidence of said claim.
3. She is asked again for evidence of said claim.
4. She is asked yet again for evidence of said claim.
5 Vixen
a. tell us to go find it ourselves and/or
b. attempts to change the subject/move the goalpost and/or
c. disappears for a bit hoping we forget all about it
d. reemerges as if she were never asked for the evidence.

 

[TruthCalls]

And she won't. This is how the game is played:

1. Vixen makes a claim.
2. She is asked for evidence of said claim.
3. She is asked again for evidence of said claim.
4. She is asked yet again for evidence of said claim.
5 Vixen
a. tell us to go find it ourselves and/or
b. attempts to change the subject/move the goalpost and/or
c. disappears for a bit hoping we forget all about it
d. reemerges as if she were never asked for the evidence.

You forgot...
6. A month or two later she will repeat the claim.

 

[Stacyhs]

You forgot...
6. A month or two later she will repeat the claim.

I stand corrected.

 

[Vixen]

What difference would standing on a chair make if the window is lower than the car park level?

You can still look upwards and see people's legs, headlights or cars arriving.

 

[Vixen]

Also, the seat of the chair is lower than the top ledge of the bathtub. Why would someone stand on a chair and then lean over the bathtub to look out the window when it would be easier, quicker and give you a better vantage point (to view a dirt bank) by just standing on the tub?

Might have been standing there a long time, hence a chair is more comfortable than balancing on a narrow ridge.

 

[Vixen]

Erm, will you please stop using elementary logic and solid reasoning in your arguments on this matter. It's perfectly obvious (using bizarro-world rules) that any rational person would have used that chair in front of the bath, rather than stand on the higher and closer-to-the-window bath rim itself, in order to look out onto a car park that it was impossible to see whether one was standing on the bath or the chair.

Do keep up

You don't know. Suppose someone was lurking in the boys' flat on the lower split level (lower because the house is on a steep hill, not because the lower part of the building is designed as sub-ground level and foundations dug, accordingly).

You are hanging around waiting to see if any police cars or neighbours arrive to investigate a fracas they may have overheard. You are hiding and waiting to see if the coast is clear but you can't step outside.

It is quite feasible you would pull a chair over to a window that has a view of people arriving, as you need height to see out of it. You stand on the chair and use it as a balance or leverage as your other leg, or both, hoists itself right up against the wall balancing on the bath edge, to see what is happening in the car park region outside. You can see people or cars approaching.

After half an hour or so, you know either that the coast is clear or the person you were waiting to arrive home upstairs has now approached.

That chair effectively blocks the bathroom so probably wasn't there all the time.

 

[TomG]

I've searched through Guede's diary and can no mention of hearing a noise downstairs. Do you have a source for this?

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Rudy_Guede's_Prison_Diary_(Translated)

Second highlight: Agreed. I see no advantage for him doing this. By March, he certainly understands about DNA profiling, etc.

I was looking at the video of some blood droplet collection in the upstairs apartment. I noticed the droplet had very clear contained borders but after the collection, it had been smeared to where it looked like it had spread out. Look at about 18:12 to 18:29
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/crime-scene-videos/

I was also shocked to see the tech use the same swab to collect from distinctly different droplets. S/he first swabs one drop, then the other, then goes back to the first drop and swabs it again and then goes to the second drop and swabs it yet again! What if these had been droplets from 2 people? Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy work.

Numbers is probably correct about the circular markings being references, but they obviously mean something. I don't have a reference for Rudy's diary other than the IA wiki reference, I don't know who wrote the article or if it was a consensus:
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/blood-evidence-downstairs-apartment/ You have given me a reference to the pro-guilt wiki, I don't know how accurate that would be.

As far as Ricardo's room is concerned there is obviously blood on the floor as far as I can see. The shutters are closed so the cat couldn't have got in via the window and the door was obviously locked since the cops had to kick it open. There is the possibility that the blood was on the floor in Ricardo's room before he left but Marco Marzan doesn't confirm, and is quoted as saying "When I was leaving, there was no blood on the floor in the house; on the walls,". Then the guys would have had to have urinated on his floor on top of clearly visible blood spots. I know young guys can be a bit nuts at times but that would be macabre, although you can't rule it out, but I don't think there is enough pro-cat evidence to rule out the possibility that Rudy was downstairs at some point.

Hoots

 

[Stacyhs]

Because the top of the bathroom window is lower than the parking area, in order to look UP you actually need to get close to the window and look up from the bottom of the window. Standing on a chair or the rim of the tub farther back from the window would actually cut off most of the upper part of the view including the parking parapet.

You have given me a reference to the pro-guilt wiki, I don't know how accurate that would be.

It may be pro-guilt, but I have not found their translations of documents to be inaccurate. The problem lies in their comments and analyses, and their interpretation of what things mean/might mean, etc.

 

[Vixen]

I've searched through Guede's diary and can no mention of hearing a noise downstairs. Do you have a source for this?

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Rudy_Guede's_Prison_Diary_(Translated)

Second highlight: Agreed. I see no advantage for him doing this. By March, he certainly understands about DNA profiling, etc.

I was looking at the video of some blood droplet collection in the upstairs apartment. I noticed the droplet had very clear contained borders but after the collection, it had been smeared to where it looked like it had spread out. Look at about 18:12 to 18:29
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/crime-scene-videos/

I was also shocked to see the tech use the same swab to collect from distinctly different droplets. S/he first swabs one drop, then the other, then goes back to the first drop and swabs it again and then goes to the second drop and swabs it yet again! What if these had been droplets from 2 people? Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy work.

Guede administered three towels to the dying girl before himself running off, because he heard a noise from downstairs that frightened him, he claimed.

He ran home via Plaza Grimana direction, changed and washed his jogging pants, then went out nightclubbing. Rudy in his formal interview said he left the cottage about 22:30. He has thus been at the scene for about one and a half hours.

It's interesting the sudden noise he heard that made him flee coincides with Knox claiming as of the time 'Patrick killed Meredith' she also heard a thud and likewise Kokomani told police he was in the area around about the time a car was being towed off (this did happen and as verified by the car mechanic independently) and this was circa 10:20. He was also objectively and scientifically 'pinged' in the area. He said he heard a woman shouting in a foreign language and extraneous loud noises.

So three peope independently of each other reported an unexpected noise (possibly of falling furniture) that caused alacrity, other than the 'harrowing scream', which is reported separately.

What is striking is that when people give false testimony, they can lie in great detail (gild the lily) about what was said, who was there, what the weather was like and a lot of inconsequential stuff to make their fabrications as plausible as possible.

They rarely include details such as environmental background noise such as birds singing, a man drilling in the road or a car backfiring. This convinces me that there really was a significant 'thud' in or around 10:15 - 10:30 and that present to witness it were at the least, Kokomani, Knox and Guede.

If it hadn't happened I am sure they would not have mentioned it, even though all three are habitual liars.

Sure, Rudy used this as an excuse to explain why he ran off as he did leaving Mez alone, Knox tried to claim 'the police made me imagine it' and Kokomani was an alcoholic cocaine dealer with organised Albanian gang connections but their earliest witness statements are remarkably consistent in that all three mention the thud-like noise.

If the probability of a liar remembering to include environmental noise in their pack of lies is - lets be generous - 1/10, then the random odds of two other liars also saying the same is 0.10*0.10*0.10 and the chances of all three - or at least two for definite - giving the same approximate time multiplies that probability by let's say 0.01, a hundredfold.

Do the math.

Go figure.

 

[Vixen]

Apparently not nearly enough.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_53971524324c05488e.jpg[/qimg]

BTW Vixen, please answer the question. Why do you still claim the Italian Supreme Court has no right to evaluate evidence, when you (wrongly) claim that the 2013 Chieffi panel annulled the Conti-Vecchiotti report?

As you can see from the pic, the angle of vision is quite wide as the wall of the car park boundary is at least six feet away (2.4m).

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

 

[Stacyhs]

Guede administered three towels to the dying girl before himself running off, because he heard a noise from downstairs that frightened him, he claimed.

He ran home via Plaza Grimana direction, changed and washed his jogging pants, then went out nightclubbing. Rudy in his formal interview said he left the cottage about 22:30. He has thus been at the scene for about one and a half hours.

It's interesting the sudden noise he heard that made him flee coincides with Knox claiming as of the time 'Patrick killed Meredith' she also heard a thud and likewise Kokomani told police he was in the area around about the time a car was being towed off (this did happen and as verified by the car mechanic independently) and this was circa 10:20. He was also objectively and scientifically 'pinged' in the area. He said he heard a woman shouting in a foreign language and extraneous loud noises.

Knox did not claim to have heard any noises coming from the apartment below. What she actually said was:

Then I don't remember anything anymore, I am very confused in my head. I do not recall whether Meredith was screaming and if [I? she?](*) also heard thuds [tonfi] because I was involved, but I was imagining what could have happened.

No mention of downstairs.

Odd how Guede never mentioned these noises as his reason for running off in his Skype call to Benedetti. He only first mentions them 3 weeks later in his deposition to the German police. He made up that crap just like the rest of his story is a pile.

Kokomani again? Nothing he says is reliable. He was all over the place in his testimony and most of it was absurd (olive throwing, Guede offering him 250 euros to borrow his car the next day, seeing AK and RS...with a non-existent uncle... together before she even arrived in Perugia). You really think he could hear a thud coming from inside the downstairs apartment through the thick stone walls and closed windows? Really?

So three peope independently of each other reported an unexpected noise (possibly of falling furniture) that caused alacrity, other than the 'harrowing scream', which is reported separately.

Nope. Only one person claimed to hear noises coming from the downstairs apartment, not three.

What is striking is that when people give false testimony, they can lie in great detail (gild the lily) about what was said, who was there, what the weather was like and a lot of inconsequential stuff to make their fabrications as plausible as possible.

They rarely include details such as environmental background noise such as birds singing, a man drilling in the road or a car backfiring. This convinces me that there really was a significant 'thud' in or around 10:15 - 10:30 and that present to witness it were at the least, Kokomani, Knox and Guede.

If it hadn't happened I am sure they would not have mentioned it, even though all three are habitual liars.

You just contradicted yourself. First you say liars give "a lot of inconsequential stuff to make their fabrications as plausible as possible" then immediately declare (with no evidence) that "they rarely include details such as environmental background noise such as birds singing, a man drilling in the road or a car backfiring." Sounds like pretty "inconsequential stuff" to me.

Koko, Knox, and Guede didn't mention a thud or noises coming from downstairs; only Guede did.

Sure, Rudy used this as an excuse to explain why he ran off as he did leaving Mez alone, Knox tried to claim 'the police made me imagine it' and Kokomani was an alcoholic cocaine dealer with organised Albanian gang connections but their earliest witness statements are remarkably consistent in that all three mention the thud-like noise.

I agree that Rudy used it as an excuse. He had to come up with a reason why he ran off leaving Meredith to die without getting help. Knox never said she heard a noise from downstairs; see her quote above. How on earth do you find them to be "remarkably consistent when one said he heard noises like furniture being moved around downstairs, Amanda mentioned a thud she imagined which, from the sentence construction, was connected to what was happening in Meredith's bedroom, not downstairs, and Koko talked about a woman screaming in a foreign language and various noises. Funny how the people standing right outside with the broken down car testified they heard no such noises, innit? And that was between 10:45 and 11:25 PM, not 10:30.

If the probability of a liar remembering to include environmental noise in their pack of lies is - lets be generous - 1/10, then the random odds of two other liars also saying the same is 0.10*0.10*0.10 and the chances of all three - or at least two for definite - giving the same approximate time multiplies that probability by let's say 0.01, a hundredfold.

Do the math.

Go figure.

Trouble with your 'math' is that it isn't based on reality; it's based on your made up nonsense and factual errors. Go figure.

 

[Stacyhs]

As you can see from the pic, the angle of vision is quite wide as the wall of the car park boundary is at least six feet away (2.4m).

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

It still doesn't change the fact that, in order to look UP at the car park, one would stand as close to the window as possible and look up from the lower section of it. Standing on a chair a couple feet away from it would raise the line of sight and cut off the upper view.

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.