Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Kestrel]

Rudy's toilet habits... he may well have flushed and not checked to make sure his deposit had disappeared. Perhaps he didn't know about the faeces until he read about it in the press?

I find it more likely that he was interrupted before flushing, such as in this scenario:

A little before 9 PM, Rudy enters the driveway to the cottage. He knows the boys downstairs are out of town and the upstairs looks empty. The girls are away for the weekend or at least out on the town. In previous visits to the cottage, he noticed the problem with the upstairs window shutter. The streetlight shines on the other side of the cottage and it's more open to the road. This side is more sheltered, the trees in the driveway block the view. Using a stick, Rudy moves the green exterior shutter out of the way and lobs a large rock through the window. He waits in the shadows for a while to see if the rock woke anyone up, but the cottage remains quiet. Climbing the up the bars on the window below, he reaches in the broken window, flips the latch and pushes the window open. There is still some glass on the sill, but his gloves and clothing protect him as he lifts himself up through the window. This isn't the first time he has entered a building this way. Once inside, Rudy pulls the shutter closed and turns on the light. He feels pretty safe now that he is inside. The girls shouldn't be showing up anytime soon. Rudy is looking for cash so he can pay the rent due on Monday. He notices a laptop he might grab later, but needs his hands free for now. No sense lugging it from room to room.

Rudy's stomach has been acting up tonight, so he takes a break from burglary. He drinks some juice he finds in the refrigerator and heads to the bathroom. Just as he is finishing up, the front door to the cottage is opened. Rudy reaches into his pocket and takes out a knife.

 

[HumanityBlues]

The U.S. does have trials with no jury which are similar to the fast track trials in Italy.

For criminal cases?

Edit: I think you mean a bench trial where a defendant has waived his/her right to a jury. Not recommended btw, unless you know the judge really well.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Piktor,

I think that both secondary transfer and contamination need to be examined as possibilities. There are a number of questions I have. First, if the greater quantity of Mr. Sollecito’s DNA over the unknown DNA indicates a different mechanism of deposit, then why doesn’t the same logic hold for Ms. Kercher’s DNA, which is greater in quantity over Mr. Sollecito’s by about the same ratio? Second, if the unknown DNA depositors are male, as indicated in the article in The Independent, then how could this be secondary transfer, the other flatmates being female? The most serious question I have is that I have never heard anyone make the claim that a certain amount of DNA rules out contamination, except from the prosecution in this case. I have quoted from experts who say the opposite. What expert opinion (primary literature, textbook, or other) is the support for your position?

The two unknowns are female.

 

[stilicho]

Here are some examples:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/02/07/bart.officer.bail/index.html
http://cbs5.com/crime/angel.villalona.giants.2.1302437.html.

In this one the family of the victim asked the court to drop charges. Rather different, I'd say.

 

[quadraginta]

Actually, here you go. This is probably a better explanation for the three suspects being held until trial: http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=4566125&page=1. I am looking for an example where a sexual assault/murder suspect was ever allowed bail until their trial. I am sure there is one, somewhere, but I don't know where it could be.

I would hate to be the judge who set bail when the stakes are that high.

In cases involving extreme violence, and often with less cause in high profile cases (maybe especially then) bail can be set at huge, even unrealistic amounts here, or even denied. Conversely, murder defendants can run around quite free under the same severity of charges. Consistency doesn't appear to be a virtue.

Bail is also used quite blatantly as a tool of intimidation here. There are four individuals sitting in a county jail in Satsuma, FL. right now. Their collective alleged crimes are the sale, on various occasions, of a total of ~300 Oxycontin tablets, charges which would normally find them released on their own recognizance or faced with relatively trivial bail amounts. Their cumulative bails total in the several millions of dollars. This is because all four of them are suspected to have either involvement in or knowledge of the disappearance of a little girl a year ago. The sums involved are technically within the discretion of the courts, but they would never have been set within even orders of magnitude of what they have been if the county did not believe that such intimidation would shake loose some information helpful to solving the missing child case. Local LE has made no bones about this, and has all but stated as much outright. The drug arrests themselves were the result of a months long local "sting" operation set up with this particular goal in mind.

Still more laudatory aspects of our legal system.

 

[HumanityBlues]

In this one the family of the victim asked the court to drop charges. Rather different, I'd say.

No argument here. I honestly just did a quick google to give examples just to say it happens.

Wasn't Phil Spector out on bail too? I only followed that case a little towards the end.

 

[HumanityBlues]

The drug arrests themselves were the result of a months long local "sting" operation set up with this particular goal in mind.

Still more laudatory aspects of our legal system.

Your issue with inconsistency in affording bail I can understand. But what bothers you so much about this other aspect in terms of law enforcement strategy?

 

[piktor]

No argument here. I honestly just did a quick google to give examples just to say it happens.

Wasn't Phil Spector out on bail too? I only followed that case a little towards the end.

Yes, Spector came to court with a different wig every day. He was such a talented boy when he was young, though.

 

[quadraginta]

Your issue with inconsistency in affording bail I can understand. But what bothers you so much about this other aspect in terms of law enforcement strategy?

The sting and busts were only a tool in pursuit of the goal of incarceration with pragmatically unreachable bail. The two are not separate considerations in this instance.

The "sting" aspect of the operation is not one which I have any fundamental reservations about. I'm not even particularly disturbed by the ultimate purpose in this case. My comment was directed more towards the elastic nature of bail in general in the U.S. system. This was a premium example which is current and ongoing.

 

[HumanityBlues]

The sting and busts were only a tool in pursuit of the goal of incarceration with pragmatically unreachable bail. The two are not separate considerations in this instance.

The "sting" aspect of the operation is not one which I have any fundamental reservations about. I'm not even particularly disturbed by the ultimate purpose in this case. My comment was directed more towards the elastic nature of bail in general in the U.S. system. This was a premium example which is current and ongoing.

No argument here. A lot of people have the same complaints about sentencing in the United States, which is a valid concern IMO but there are also valid policy arguments to add subjectivity to sentencing, but then risk of prejudice becomes higher and other issues attach. There is no perfect system obviously.

 

[piktor]

I find it more likely that he was interrupted before flushing, such as in this scenario:

A little before 9 PM, Rudy enters the driveway to the cottage. He knows the boys downstairs are out of town and the upstairs looks empty. The girls are away for the weekend or at least out on the town. In previous visits to the cottage, he noticed the problem with the upstairs window shutter. The streetlight shines on the other side of the cottage and it's more open to the road. This side is more sheltered, the trees in the driveway block the view. Using a stick, Rudy moves the green exterior shutter out of the way and lobs a large rock through the window. He waits in the shadows for a while to see if the rock woke anyone up, but the cottage remains quiet. Climbing the up the bars on the window below, he reaches in the broken window, flips the latch and pushes the window open. There is still some glass on the sill, but his gloves and clothing protect him as he lifts himself up through the window. This isn't the first time he has entered a building this way. Once inside, Rudy pulls the shutter closed and turns on the light. He feels pretty safe now that he is inside. The girls shouldn't be showing up anytime soon. Rudy is looking for cash so he can pay the rent due on Monday. He notices a laptop he might grab later, but needs his hands free for now. No sense lugging it from room to room.

Rudy's stomach has been acting up tonight, so he takes a break from burglary. He drinks some juice he finds in the refrigerator and heads to the bathroom. Just as he is finishing up, the front door to the cottage is opened. Rudy reaches into his pocket and takes out a knife.

The problem with this scenario is Guede has no history of violent behavior. He has a store of small-time burglaries that police ignored.

If he actually did this as you say: he then thoroughly cleaned up the corridor WHERE THERE ARE NO FOOTPRINTS OF HIS and then cleans part of the murder scene but decides to leave his handprint in the victim's blood and his unflushed stool at the toilet and then lifted the broken glass at Filomena's room and lay a jumble of Filomena's clothing on the floor and then put back the broken glass atop the clothing and leaves with Meredith's cash and phones he later discards in Perugia -of all places- and does not take the expensive computers at the apartment.

He did state that he tried to stop Meredith's hemorrhage with a towel. Strange behavior for a lone thieving rapist murderer.

 

[HumanityBlues]

The problem with this scenario is Guede has no history of violent behavior. He has a store of small-time burglaries that police ignored.

If he actually did this as you say: he then thoroughly cleaned up the corridor WHERE THERE ARE NO FOOTPRINTS OF HIS and then cleans part of the murder scene but decides to leave his handprint in the victim's blood and his unflushed stool at the toilet and then lifted the broken glass at Filomena's room and lay a jumble of Filomena's clothing on the floor and then put back the broken glass atop the clothing and leaves with Meredith's cash and phones he later discards in Perugia -of all places- and does not take the expensive computers at the apartment.

He did state that he tried to stop Meredith's hemorrhage with a towel. Strange behavior for a lone thieving rapist murderer.

For arguments sake about not stealing a laptop, if Guede did enter the home to burglarize, and then ended up killing someone, wouldn't it be pretty dumb to then try and take a computer that would automatically connect him to the scene of the crime? He certainly wouldn't be able to sell it. I don't think the "not stealing a computer" really means much. I would expect a burglar to take someone's cash because it's not like the police have the serial numbers or can trace it back to the home. If the guy takes a laptop from a house where someone was murdered, where is gonna keep it and what use is it to him?

 

[piktor]

For arguments sake about not stealing a laptop, if Guede did enter the home to burglarize, and then ended up killing someone, wouldn't it be pretty dumb to then try and take a computer that would automatically connect him to the scene of the crime? He certainly wouldn't be able to sell it. I don't think the "not stealing a computer" really means much. I would expect a burglar to take someone's cash because it's not like the police have the serial numbers or can trace it back to the home. If the guy takes a laptop from a house where someone was murdered, where is gonna keep it and what use is it to him?

I have no idea how sophisticated Guede is about computer identity tracing. I have no idea either what a desperate young man would do or not do to get some fast cash. He did make an internet call to his friend in Italy and that's how he was traced and caught by Interpol in Germany. The guy is not a bright bulb, I must say.

 

[HumanityBlues]

I have no idea how sophisticated Guede is about computer identity tracing. I have no idea either what a desperate young man would do or not do to get some fast cash. He did make an internet call to his friend in Italy and that's how he was traced and caught by Interpol in Germany. The guy is not a bright bulb, I must say.

True. He doesn't strike me as very bright (neither does Amanda Knox might I add). I actually didn't mean to intend that Guede would have been so sophisticated as to consider some computer identity tracing in some elaborate technological sense. My point is if for instance he had taken the laptop, if he had stolen it and sold it, it would still be linked to him and link him to the house. If he had stolen and left it at is his flat, it would still connect him to the murder. It wouldn't take much to show the computer was from Meredith's house. So, from my point of view, and maybe you see things differently, the fact that a laptop wasn't stolen seems pretty irrelevant to me, but I'm open minded if someone has a better explanation as to how probative the laptop not being taken is.

 

[piktor]

True. He doesn't strike me as very bright (neither does Amanda Knox might I add). I actually didn't mean to intend that Guede would have been so sophisticated as to consider some computer identity tracing in some elaborate technological sense. My point is if for instance he had taken the laptop, if he had stolen it and sold it, it would still be linked to him and link him to the house. If he had stolen and left it at is his flat, it would still connect him to the murder. It wouldn't take much to show the computer was from Meredith's house. So, from my point of view, and maybe you see things differently, the fact that a laptop wasn't stolen seems pretty irrelevant to me, but I'm open minded if someone has a better explanation as to how probative the laptop not being taken is.

It proves a dim bulb like Guede was not alone. He could not possibly have attempted rape, murder, clean up but not flush the toilet, remove as best possible footprint evidence where he left none but not remove his glaring bloody handprint in Meredith's room, etc.

Next morning Knox and Sollecito decide to give contradictory alibis that make no sense, then make more contradictory explanations when there is no need for this and on and on.

It's like they were begging to be accused along with the "single culprit" and not let go like Filomena, Lumumba and the rest of the young crew at Pergola 7 who did have a straight story and credible alibis.

France's Amelie would be proud of these two wacky pranksters.

 

[HumanityBlues]

It proves a dim bulb like Guede was not alone. He could not possibly have attempted rape, murder, clean up but not flush the toilet, remove as best possible footprint evidence where he left none but not remove his glaring bloody handprint in Meredith's room, etc.

Next morning Knox and Sollecito decide to give contradictory alibis that make no sense, then make more contradictory explanations when there is no need for this and on and on.

It's like they were begging to be accused along with the "single culprit" and not let go like Filomena, Lumumba and the rest of the young crew at Pergola 7 who did have a straight story and credible alibis.

France's Amelie would be proud of these two wacky pranksters.

Fair enough, but then why do you put emphasis on the laptop? I don't see it as important or relevant. It's not even a clue because you can easily deduce it anyway you want.

 

[Dan O.]

... Just as he is finishing up, the front door to the cottage is opened. Rudy reaches into his pocket and takes out a knife.

I don't think Rudy is going to be reaching for his knife at this point. His primary concern is going to be getting out of the cottage unseen.

He turns off the light, puts his gloves on and listens for Meredith to go back to her room. He then quietly slips out of the bathroom, tiptoes through the laundry, makes his way to the front door and very carefully turns the latch and pulls the door open to make his sprint for freedom...

 

[Fulcanelli]

For arguments sake about not stealing a laptop, if Guede did enter the home to burglarize, and then ended up killing someone, wouldn't it be pretty dumb to then try and take a computer that would automatically connect him to the scene of the crime? He certainly wouldn't be able to sell it. I don't think the "not stealing a computer" really means much. I would expect a burglar to take someone's cash because it's not like the police have the serial numbers or can trace it back to the home. If the guy takes a laptop from a house where someone was murdered, where is gonna keep it and what use is it to him?

He didn't take the computer because it would link him to the crime? Meredith's credit cards were taken, with her name and signatures on them...what would link him to the crime more then those? Or his calling card in the toilet, or his bloody footprints and fingerprints all over the place? The idea that he didn't take stuff for fear it would link him to the crime doesn't work.

 

[HumanityBlues]

He didn't take the computer because it would link him to the crime? Meredith's credit cards were taken, with her name and signatures on them...what would link him to the crime more then those? Or his calling card in the toilet, or his bloody footprints and fingerprints all over the place? The idea that he didn't take stuff for fear it would link him to the crime doesn't work.

Tit for tat. My only point is that the lack of stealing the laptop proves absolutely nothing and is completely subjective and irrelevant. There could be a number of reasons someone might not steal something. Just like there could be a number of reasons he might have left his stool in the toilet. Just because one explanation doesn't satisfy you doesn't mean the one you choose to believe is true. The laptop not being stolen isn't probative of anything; it's significance goes no further than mere unsubstantiated speculation.

 

[stilicho]

My only point is that the lack of stealing the laptop proves absolutely nothing and is completely subjective and irrelevant.

It would be completely irrelevant except that it was brought up at the trial. I am not sure how many times it was brought up but it was during the PM's questions of AK:

PM: Listen, did you actually check whether anything was stolen?

AK: I don't know everything that Filomena has. But I saw that there was lots of stuff all over the place, so I couldn't really check. That's why I called her. I saw that the things that I recognized, things of value, were still in the apartment, like the television, the computer, those things. That's why I thought: What a strange burglary!

PM: Strange, eh.

AK: Yes.

PM: That basically there was no burglary.

(Source: http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?t=356199 )

And then, of course, there's RS's cryptic 112 call:

Raffaele claims that someone has broken into the house through a broken window and caused a lot of disorder. There is a lot of blood, but nothing has been stolen, and the main problem – as he sees it – is that there is a locked door. The police say that they will send a patrol to verify the situation.

(Source: http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index...estify_those_devils_that_lurk_in_the_details/ )

Filomena Romanelli also mentioned her laptop in her testimony:

"I remember that in lifting the computer I realised that I was picking up bits of glass because there were bits of glass on top and it was all covered with glass."

As I recall, she was wrong about the location of her laptop. I believe she said it was on her clothes on the floor while it was actually still on the desk.

(Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/08/kercher-trial-knox )

I don't know what the defence teams said to challenge these statements since it's apparent that both RS and AK knew there wasn't a burglary or at least that nothing of value appeared to be stolen.

I think we've been over this ground before, too. We've talked about RG putting on and taking off gloves to alternately reveal and conceal his presence. And we've talked about how he managed to simulate multiple attackers as established by the medical examiner.

If I had to guess why Filomena's laptop was featured so prominently in court, it would be to help in establishing that this was either no ordinary burglary or no burglary at all. Is that probative?