Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[piktor]

I likewise deny the possibility that AK is mentally ill. She is, much to her chagrin, a garden variety convicted murderer. Nothing special at all.

In our times, dear stilicho, if you are not half-crazy, you are not normal.

 

[Kestrel]

I am awaiting a scientific explanation of how a rock thrown from outside the cottage managed to penetrate the shutters without damaging them.

The simple explanation is that the external shutter was open when the rock was thrown through the window. The Mignini report says that Filomena wasn't sure she had closed the shutters when she left the cottage. Even if she had, the latch didn't engage properly. The shutters could be easily opened from the outside.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

The simple explanation is that the external shutter was open when the rock was thrown through the window. The Mignini report says that Filomena wasn't sure she had closed the shutters when she left the cottage. Even if she had, the latch didn't engage properly. The shutters could be easily opened from the outside.

So, Guede climbed up, opened the shutters, climbed down, threw the rock through the window, and then climbed back up?

You don't find that a bit...contrived?

 

[Kestrel]

So, Guede climbed up, opened the shutters, climbed down, threw the rock through the window, and then climbed back up?

You don't find that a bit...contrived?

Using a stick to open the shutter was part of the scenario I posted yesterday.

Climbing to open the shutter would also be possible. It's also far less contrived than the prosecution theory that the rock was thrown from the inside.

 

[Fiona]

4) halides1 and Fiona: How strong (or not) do you each think the case against Knox and Sollecito is without the LCN DNA results? Strong enough to suspect them? Charge them? Bring to trial? Convict?

Real life has also intervened for me and I have no internet access from Monday to Friday for the next few weeks. More importantly I have come to the conclusion that this thread has deteriorated and is unlikely to be salvageable: we all have the same information: we cannot agree on the most minor points: and some of the contributions lately seem to have nothing to do with the facts of the case but rather to be bringing personal animosity from elsewhere in order to continue an irrelevant fight.

Nevertheless your question is fair and I will try to answer it.

I have thought from quite early on that the dna evidence is not all that important in this case. That is not to say that I do not think it is valid; but rather that I think the case does not hinge on it. I do not think it rests on any one factor but rather on the accumulation of many small bits of evidence. This is true of many real life criminal (and civil) cases. Our expectations of one clear and unambiguous "proof" are unrealistic, and the search for that is quite damaging to our understanding. There would be no defence if things happened like that: they don't, usually

So let me review the things I think have led me to believe that the verdict is correct, in no particular order: The other facts we have to account for, as I understand it, are these

i. Guede's **** in the toilet
ii. The broken window
iii. The glass from the window being on top of the mess
iv. The footprint evidence revealed by luminol in the hall and Filomena's room
v. The mixed blood and dna in the bathroom and in the footprints
vi. The footprint on the bathmat
vii. Guede's dna inside Meredith
viii. Guede's fingerprints and hand prints and shoe prints at the scene
ix. The lady's shoeprint under the pillow
x. Meredith's body being moved after her death
xi. The number and spread of the wounds on Meredith's body
xii. The different sizes of the stab wounds
xiii. AK and RS's movements on the night in question
xiv. The changing stories
xv. The accusation against Lumumba
xvi. The failure to clear Lumumba given several days to do so

There are probably a lot more but I have not got a lot of time today

1. Stranger v Known Assailants:

It is established fact that most murders and sexual assaults are committed by someone the victim knows. Of course that is a general finding and there are many exceptions: so we have to look at the possibility that there was an as yet unknown perpetrator.

a)For that to be the case it seems to me that one would have to accept that entry was through the broken window. There is no reason that window would have been broken for any other reason than to effect entry, if a total stranger killed Meredith Kercher. I cannot see it as likely that such a stranger came in through the door. There are only three ways that could have happened: either Meredith opened it and let this stranger in (no sign of a struggle at the door) which is to me unlikely when she was alone; or it was left open before she returned ( AK and RS were last to leave the cottage and AK has testified they were careful to close the door properly as it was apt to blow open, so that is unlikely) and the stranger entered before she came home; or she did not close it properly when she did come home and so the stranger entered after her (again unlikely given they knew it could blow open and she was alone in the house).

This means that someone must have decided to break into a house by a difficult route and I do not know why they would have done that: subsequent break-ins were not through that window. The defence set out to show it could be done but they did not actually succeed in doing it (though arguably it is not impossible).

b) Continuing on that line: a stranger might have known how many people lived in the house: or might not. But is is unlikely they could have known that Meredith was alone and the boys downstairs were away as well. For an opportunist thief this is a lot of coincidence:the same applies for a determined rapist. There are shutters on the windows so the absence of lights is not conclusive: it was a holiday weekend: people are not in their usual routine on holidays and there is no certainty when folk will be in and asleep; coming home, with friends or without; and in a student house that is particularly true. It seems that this stranger chose to enter sometime between 5 pm and 9 pm: in this country opportunist burglars tend to attack houses where the people work and they do it during the day when the residents are away at their jobs: or at school etc. This is an odd time to choose.

c)There is no evidence from forensics that a stranger was in the house, so far as I know.

d) Burglars do not generally turn rapist when disturbed (or for any other reason)

e) The evidence is that there was more than one assailant: so did one very agile stranger come in through the window and then let others in through the door? Not possible without a key unless Meredith was already home: maybe the stranger did not realise she was in till he or she let their pals in? But then we either have at least two burglars who suddenly turn to rape and murder; or we have two rapists working together. It can happen: but it is not a very likely scenario

f) The glass was on top of Filomena's stuff: I accept that evidence and so it seems the window was broken from inside. The defence tried to show that the pattern was compatible with a rock thrown from outside, but as I understand it they accepted that they had not taken the shutters and curtains into account when they proposed that: so that view falls. But a stranger can have no reason to do that

So for those reasons I do not think a stranger committed this crime.

2. Guede Acted Alone:

This has been extensively discussed. I do not think it is plausible. Much of what I have said about a proposed stranger also applies to this theory: the problems with the window: the glass on the top of the mess; the evidence of more than one assaillant; the problems with entry through the door; no trace of Guede in Filomena's room; no trace of him in the bathroom; the fact that Meredith was moved after death.

In addition to those things there is the fact that those who know Guede do not attest to any violence in him (the descriptions from his foster mother are interesting in this respect and provide a good counter to the lurid descriptions of his character we see elsewhere)

More importantly I personally cannot see any circumstances whereby a burglar (or rapist) could use the toilet: I know that many accept he ate something bad, as he said; or that the stress of the murder etc itself could have loosened his bowels. I am open to evidence that this is a common reaction found at other crime scenes, but in its absence I just don't believe it: sure, once away: but while there and full of adrenalin? I cannot think this is a good mechanism for fight and flight, or any other theory of how the body reacts under stress. Perhaps it is argued that he stayed long enough for the adrenalin to wear off? Again I cannot see any reason to believe he was the one who moved the body: what reason could he have to do that? To make it look like rape? How does that seem like a good idea? And why did it take so long?

3. The Three Acting Together

This theory fits the evidence better, so far as I can see. It is admittedly difficult to understand how they could have planned such a thing: but the verdict does not presume premeditation, so that is a bit easier.

No matter how many holes one can pick the fact is that neither of the alternatives proposed accounts for most of the things which I listed as facts which need to be explained. There are arguments put forward by the "lone wolf" proponents to explain them all, and each by itself might seem at least possible: but taken together they don't: they pile odd on top of unlikely and ice them with frankly ridiculous; as a whole they are just not convincing to me.

Let me go through them (at the risk of repetition)

i. Guede's **** in the toilet. I do not believe a lone rapist/murderer would take a **** because I do not think his body would let him: but if it did I cannot see why he would he would do it an not flush: flushing is pretty automatic and there is nothing in this narrative to suggest he was disturbed unless it is proposed he was disturbed by Meredith either coming home; or by her challenging him ove the money or something else.

If he was in the toilet when she came home he is a very relaxed burglar indeed: and even a habitual robber would surely "go" before he broke in. It is possible he ate something bad but I still think this is a very, very odd coincidence.

But say it happened, and he did not flush. Why? Natural assumption is so he could get out of the door ( when she went to her room he could easily do this and no harm done.

It follows that he must have intended rape and/or murder, and he did not flush so he could sneak up on her: then he had to have come with the intention to rape and murder. It is not very likely to have suddenly occurred to him when he was dealing with a bad stomach.

He has no record of violence (though that proves nothing in itself): he could not know for sure that the other housemates were not coming home that night. He is not known to carry a knife but if he intended to assault her, fair enough: but why would he have two? I just cannot see this

So say he did have an invitation to enter and was visiting: all is fine and he needs the toilet. While he is there she discovers the money missing. Why would she accuse him while he is still in there? Through the closed door? Or he heard her (through the closed door and from the bedroom at the other end of the house) make the discovery? why is he in a hurry to get out of the toilet and not out of the house? I can't see that either.

ii. The broken window

If he came in that way why is there no trace of him in that room? How did he do it? Why that night at that time with no certainty that Meredith was alone and that her housemates would not return? He may have watched and known she was on her own: but he could not know what Laura and Filomena were doing, because AK did not know: or so she said. If katy_did is correct how did he intend to get out afterwards? Presumably he intended to steal the keys, as has been proposed. If so he planned murder/rape yet he had no plan to get away afterwards? His flight to Germany was not smooth and not immediate. What was all that about?

iii. The glass from the window being on top of the mess

Guede can have no reason to do this: so the defence say this is not true. Well it may be that this was not accepted by the court and the reasons for decision will say so if they did not: but aside from on this board I have not seen that challenged. Filomena and the police both testified to it and I have seen nothing to counter it. In the absence of further information I take it as fact and it speaks against Guede acting alone: but AK and RS have a motive for staging a break in if they were involved. It points to a perpetrator from outside the house.

iv. The footprint evidence revealed by luminol in the hall and Filomena's room

The best arguments I have seen against this is that it was not blood but some other substance; that the time it was laid down is not certain and it could have preceded the murder; that this is to be expected when people share a house. Well I cannot accept that. These were bare footprints and there is no explanation as to why they would be in Filomena's room: there is no reason Knox's dna is mixed with the substance and the scientists say they can tell blood from other stuff revealed by luminol. They are isolated: not a full track from A to B. I wrote about this extensively very early in this thread: I think this is strong evidence and the counters to it look desperate to me.

v. The mixed blood and dna in the bathroom and in the footprints

See above. We have seen explanations about shared bathrooms and also about menstrual blood. Well menstrual blood is distinguishable from other blood and that is a non starter so far as I can see, even if women were in the habit of leaving menstrual blood about the place (which they are not). Nobody has answered my question about how common it is to leave dna around and since I was wrong about the fingerprints I would like some evidence about this rather than simple assertion: it has not been forthcoming

vi. The footprint on the bathmat

That print is there. It fits Sollecito's foot. I have seen no explanation for why it is there from the defence. I have seen them try to say it cannot be Sollecito's because his foot is deformed: I have seen them say it is the wrong size and is Guede's. So when and why did Guede take his shoes off? I find this laughable, frankly.

vii. Guede's dna inside Meredith

I think we are all agreed that Guede had sexual contact with Meredith: he says consensual: most do not believe him

viii. Guede's fingerprints and hand prints and shoe prints at the scene

I think we are all agreed he was there. He says innocently. Most do not believe him

ix. The lady's shoeprint under the pillow

That shoe does not fit Meredith. It does fit Knox. But the shoe has not been found and the prosecution have not attributed it. It came from somewhere though: and no other woman is in the frame here. It is suggestive only: but in combination with the rest.....


x. Meredith's body being moved after her death

I have seen it argued that this was done either before death or very shortly after. All I can say is that there is no scientific report supporting that so far as I know: the lividity and the blood pattern all support the idea it was done after some considerable time. The removal of her clothing too. Neither a stranger nor a long attacker has any motive for doing this that I can see. I do not think Guede stayed to relax nor that he returned to do this because I cannot see any benefit to him in taking those risks. Again AK and RS have something to gain by making it more like a rape scene.

xi. The number and spread of the wounds on Meredith's body

The defence have suggested one person could have done this, but the descriptions of how are not convincing. Unless the lone killer was an octopus I accept there was more than one assaillant.

xii. The different sizes of the stab wounds

The explanation as to how these wounds could have been made with one knife have been explored. I do not accept them for reasons discussed upthread. Some have also said that one murderer wielded two knives: I cannot see why he would and I do not accept that either

xiii. AK and RS's movements on the night in question

Neither of these people has an alibi of any sort: ok that can happen and it is very unfortunate if it does. By itself it is not significant. But what they have said about it does not fit the facts we have: there was no phone call between RS and his dad at 11 pm. They did not watch the film when they said they did. RS did not use his computer when he said he did. They were not asleep at 5:30 am as they said. To me there is independent evidence which overturns their claims and that cannot be waved away

xiv. The changing stories

This is damning, to me. RS originally said they were at a party. That is a report from a journalist and so we need not accept it. But he did tell the police they were together in his home: and he then retracted that as a load of rubbish. AK first said they were together; then that she was out and met Lumumba etc; then back to she was in the home. It is not just the stories either; it is how AK told hers too. We have seen the notes and the testimony. It is not plausible to me

xv. The accusation against Lumumba

This has been explained as a result of duress. There is no evidence of that duress and despite the insinuations made here the questioning looks very reasonable to me. I wonder what some people imagine happens in police interviews. I posted some stuff about that upthread: and nothing which has actualy been said is very far from what one would expect with the exception of the number of people who are said to have been in the room at the time. That claim is disputed (and is not actually supported by AK's testimony when she is asked about the numbers specifically): and given what I know of how interviews are conducted I do not believe what she says. The length of time was not unreasonable: she herself asked for the second session: her spontaneous statement in prison was not coerced at all. I think this was an attempt to frame an innocent man. I cannot see it any other way

xvi. The failure to clear Lumumba given several days to do so

My conclusion about the attempt to place blame on Lumumba is reinforced by this because I cannot see any other way to read her statement. As an attempt to clear things up it is an astonishing document: it seems to me to keep her options open rather than clearing him. From someone who is a language student and who writes regularly it is frankly unbelieveable as anythong other than an attempt to obfuscate further.

For all these reasons I think that without the dna evidence the case would have been brought and the convictions obtained

Much depends on what you choose to accept and if you believe that the prosecution conspired with the police and the forensic scientists and the court and old uncle tom cobbley and all the of course there is no case: there never could be. I see no reason to believe that at all. To me that is all the defence have got. And they have not even presented a reason why all those people would gang up on these three.

If you do accept that conspiracy then I think you must exonerate Guede too: for the evidence against him is no stronger than that against the others if you dismiss everything these conspirators have said.

Seems to me that Meredith could not have been killed by a stranger: and if all this is accepted then none of the three who have been convicted can be safely held either: so it must have been the pixies after all

 

[Kestrel]

viii. Guede's fingerprints and hand prints and shoe prints at the scene

I think we are all agreed he was there. He says innocently. Most do not believe him

ix. The lady's shoeprint under the pillow

That shoe does not fit Meredith. It does fit Knox. But the shoe has not been found and the prosecution have not attributed it. It came from somewhere though: and no other woman is in the frame here. It is suggestive only: but in combination with the rest.....

The shoe print on the pillow you are referring to had the same pattern as Rudy's Nikes. The line interpreted by the prosecution as the edge of the shoe doesn't have the right shape for the edge of a smaller shoe. It's simply a partial print from Rudy's shoe. An explanation and photo of this print can be found on Perugia Shock.

 

[Fiona]

Could be Kestrel. As I said, the prosecution did not attribute it and it was never a strong piece of evidence either way. I am surprised because one of the experts identified what type of shoe it was: and I do not know if Torre's view was accepted.

Since it was not put forward as definitely belonging to Knox is cannot be a strong plank: to me its existence was suggestive in the context of the whole case: but I am not inclined to do a lot of work on this aspect because I do not think it is very important. So unless anyone else has already done the work on this I am perfectly happy to give you it if you want it. Tracking it down would take a long time and even if I were to find that this view was not accepted you would not change your mind on this aspect: and I would not change my mind about the larger picture, if you are right,because it is not a major part of what led me to my conclusions

Fact is I am not really prepared to do any more work on these small details. They don't get us anywhere: no matter what is put forward; there is no agreement and in fact I really don't see much prospect of agreeing about anything

We all have pretty much the same information and we can go into these small things from now till doomsday: it will not make any difference. This thread has pretty much run its course, so far as I can see, at least until the reasons for decision come out

 

[piktor]

The shoe print on the pillow you are referring to had the same pattern as Rudy's Nikes. The line interpreted by the prosecution as the edge of the shoe doesn't have the right shape for the edge of a smaller shoe. It's simply a partial print from Rudy's shoe. An explanation and photo of this print can be found on Perugia Shock.

The Cook at Seattle Post Intelligencer says there is "new" and "astonishing" scientific analysis of the shoe prints:

" As Oggi says: "With the use of Crimescope which helps to select prints, treated chemically with fluorescing products, he found on the pillow case five good prints (3 superimposed) of a left shoe that delineates a sole that corresponds and measures exactly to a Nike Outbreak 2, size 45. Thus the foot of Guede. The disconcerting thing is that on that pillowcase the forensic police found only 2 traces: one of Guede and the other of a woman size 37."

..."Oggi contends that all of the blood-stained footprints in Kercher's bedroom are Rudy's size 11 Nike Outbreak 2 shoeprints. Lorenzo Rinaldi, the director of print identity in the Rome forensic police division said that in court in May 2009. Oggi goes further, saying there are no women's shoeprints in the room at all. And all of the prints appear to be from Rudy's left foot."- September 12, 2009

Not really relevant because the verdict came in guilty, despite this "new" and "astonishing" (the Cook's words) evidence...

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/

 

[piktor]

We all have pretty much the same information and we can go into these small things from now till doomsday: it will not make any difference. This thread has pretty much run its course, so far as I can see, at least until the reasons for decision come out

The Sentenza out in March will be truly interesting read because we will know what mattered to the judges and what did not.

Some have said the December verdict was an endorsement of the investigation. The judge for Guede has endorsed the investigation and the judges for Knox/Sollecito have endorsed the investigation. The appeal judges for Guede have again endorsed the investigation. Sounds like the appeal judges for Knox/Sollecito will not have a problem agreeing with the investigation.

The only chance the pair have of any luck is the prosecution or the investigators are caught fabricating evidence.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

How strong

4) halides1 and Fiona: How strong (or not) do you each think the case against Knox and Sollecito is without the LCN DNA results? Strong enough to suspect them? Charge them? Bring to trial? Convict?

Unconvincing as the LCN DNA of the knife and the weak, mixed DNA of the clasp are, they are the only things that tie RS to the room and AK to a supposed murder weapon. Without them the whole case looks weak.

The investigators could have done the rest of the forensics much more convincingly. For example, we have three destroyed hard drives that might have either confirmed or contradicted what AK or RS said about that evening. They also inadvertently erased another piece of potential alibi information, as discussed at Perugia Shock. The investigators did not take Filomena’s and Laura’s reference DNA samples. The temperature of Meredith’s body was taken about two days after death had occurred. Potentially valuable information was lost when the CCTV footage was overwritten.

The luminol was overapplied to one of the footprints, according to General Garofano, leading to a loss of detail in the image. Although some claim to have the ability to tell blood from other substances via luminol alone, this claim is controversial in the forensic literature. Moreover, Sara Gino stated "We were not told that, first of all, the prints were treated with a substance which should have indicated whether they were blood, and the result was very uncertain."

With respect to fingerprints, plenty of AK’s partial prints were seen, just not as many full prints. One leaves DNA by many mechanisms, however, including shedding hair and skin. Finding AK’s DNA in her own flat is a very unsurprising result. Her DNA was found in Sollecito’s flat as well. The lack of their DNA in Meredith’s room on all but the bra clasp is a silence that shouts.

Kestrel gave a good summary some pages back (#2412) of the multiple problems with the prosecution’s case. The prosecution would have us believe that a gang rape occurred, despite the fact that this is an unusual occurrence. AK and RG had met only twice, RS and RG had never met, and neither AK nor RS communicated with RG in any documented way. It strikes me as extraordinarily risky to commit a crime with someone one does not know. Then AK and RS are imagined to have removed evidence linking them to the crime but not evidence linking RG to the crime. In addition, the prosecution changed the motive during the trial but did not have evidence to support either motive.

Raffaele’s kitchen knife is too large to have made the bloody outline of the knife on the sheet and too large to make two of the three wounds (any knife could have made the third). On top of that we are asked to believe that RS and AK would not dispose of this knife, even though Rudy would have seen them use it and could rat them out, and even though the other knife was disposed of. We are also asked to believe that they would clean the blade of the knife but not the handle. General Garofano was also puzzled by the low level of DNA on the blade but not the handle.

I do not find the argument that the break-in was staged to be convincing, for reasons that Kestrel has mentioned. There is only piece of evidence pointing that way that I can recall, Filomena’s recollection of glass on her clothes. This evidence is not supported with photographs, and it is possible to imagine an explanation. Suppose the window were broken, and glass ended up on the laptop. Then suppose that the laptop were moved from the desk to the floor, where some of the glass slid off to some clothing and some remained on the computer.

Likewise, I don’t think that the evidence concerning the timing of the phone calls to the Carabinieri is nearly strong enough to conclude that RS lied about this. Yet the prosecution wants us to believe that RS would lie to the police about when he placed the call, before he was a suspect. This tactic would have little upside (he could have said to the postal police that he was just about to call them or the Carabinieri), and likely would have a huge downside. One would ordinarily think that the police would be meticulous record keepers about the times of calls and other matters. If RS were tempted to lie in this way, a moment’s thought should be enough to convince him of the likelihood of being found out. RS and AK did do some dumb things, but I do not believe that they are that stupid.

I have heard that the first coroner, Lalli, was fired, allegedly for leaking information. Given how much the investigators leaked in this case, this explanation of why he fired is simply not credible. Lalli believed that it was possible that there was only one assailant, IIRC, and this put him at odds with the prosecution’s theory. The evidence linking RG to the crime is much stronger; there is a bloody handprint, the bowel movement in the toilet, and there are several pieces of DNA evidence. I have not seen the electropherograms from these pieces of evidence, and so I cannot say whether they were of poor or of good quality; therefore, I am tentatively proceeding on the assumption that they are good but would change my mind if presented with evidence to the contrary. I am most puzzled by the sexual aspect of the crime, but despite this reservation, RG acting alone in the rape and murder is the most logical explanation to me.

AK’s incriminating statement was thrown out as evidence for the murder trial; therefore, it cannot be used to assess her legal guilt or innocence. However, suppose we consider her incriminating statements against Lumumba in assessing factual innocence and ask why she made them. Her subsequent comments about the interrogation are similar to those made by people who have been pressured into making false statements. Francesca Bene’s interrogation provides a modest amount of support for what AK said. In addition, we have Douglas Preston’s account of his being interrogated in a foreign language, and his evaluation that his halting answers made him sound like a liar. It is quite possible that AK’s interrogators misperceived similar behaviors of hers as evidence that she had something to hide and therefore pressed harder. Moreover, her later statement, “But I've said this many times so as to make myself clear: these things seem unreal to me, like a dream,” implicitly disavows Lumumba’s involvement. I am not sure what she was supposed to have done with respect to Lumumba beyond that.

The investigators claim that no undue coercion was used, but they have made other statements that are false. Here the investigators claim that they did not record the key interrogations with AK, despite having previously recorded phone calls involving her. Furthermore, it does not make sense to me that RS and AK should lose credibility when they lie but the investigators should not lose credibility when they lie. Therefore, AK’s account of her interrogation is more credible in my eyes than theirs is.

That leaves us with evidence such as RS’s probable lie about his cooking with Meredith, made only after he had heard that her DNA was found on the blade, not before. His statement was stupid, but understandable. Therefore, I would say that there is enough material to be suspicious of AK and RS, probably not enough to indict, and certainly not enough to convict. If information about RG’s involvement had come back earlier, I doubt that the investigators would have ever moved for an indictment against RS or AK. In other words, this is a case of tunnel-vision on the part of the investigators.

Chris

 

[BobTheDonkey]

So, if Amanda and Raffaele aren't guilty - where were they that night, and why didn't they say so from the start?

If they're innocent, why lie so much?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

with each other

So, if Amanda and Raffaele aren't guilty - where were they that night, and why didn't they say so from the start?

If they're innocent, why lie so much?

They were with each other. That is what they said prior to 5 November 2007, and what they are saying now. I surmise that I have counted fewer lies than you have.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

They were with each other. That is what they said prior to 5 November 2007, and what they are saying now. I surmise that I have counted fewer lies than you have.

Was that before, or after, Raff stated that their story was "rubbish"?

 

[Dan O.]

What exactly did Raffaele say was rubbish and when did he say it?

The "rubbish" line appears to originate with the Nov. 7, 2007 TimesOnLine article which ends "In my former statement I told you a load of rubbish because I believed Amanda's version of what happened and did not think about the inconsistencies."

From his diary written shortly after the event we get a better picture of what Raffaele was talking about:

Today the court questioned me and said that I gave three different statements, but the only difference that I find is that I said that Amanda brought me to say crap in the second version, and that was to go out at the bar where she worked, Le Chic. But I do not remember exactly whether she went out or less to go to the pub and as a consequence I do not remember how long she was absent. What is all my difficulty? I do not remember this, for them, important detail, therefore I don't break and we're investigating her. I tried to help in the investigation trying to remember and now I've brought myself to this place, better I did nothing and limit myself to say that I remained at my house and I would be spared so much unrest.

 

[Dan O.]

The investigators claim that no undue coercion was used, but they have made other statements that are false. Here the investigators claim that they did not record the key interrogations with AK, despite having previously recorded phone calls involving her. Furthermore, it does not make sense to me that RS and AK should lose credibility when they lie but the investigators should not lose credibility when they lie. Therefore, AK’s account of her interrogation is more credible in my eyes than theirs is.

During Amanda's testimony we also learn that the extensive questioning of Amanda and Raffaele in the Questura on Nov. 4th was recorded. (I guess that shoots the theory that the Italian police don't record witness interviews)

 

[Dan O.]

ii. The broken window

If he came in that way why is there no trace of him in that room? How did he do it? Why that night at that time with no certainty that Meredith was alone and that her housemates would not return? He may have watched and known she was on her own: but he could not know what Laura and Filomena were doing, because AK did not know: or so she said. If katy_did is correct how did he intend to get out afterwards? Presumably he intended to steal the keys, as has been proposed. If so he planned murder/rape yet he had no plan to get away afterwards? His flight to Germany was not smooth and not immediate. What was all that about?

What trace would you expect to find? Who would not wear gloves to climb through a window where the glass has been broken? Rudy is not inexperienced in this matter. A ski mask is also a standard accessory for the well dressed burglar that reduces visibility, protects ones identity and reduces the chance of leaving hair behind.

Pitching a large rock through the window gives a very good indication that nobody is home if there is no subsequent activity from inside. This is a long holiday weekend in a college town. It's probably a good bet that many students are out of town or out late partying. Rudy may even know that Amanda would be working that night.

The front door would be the most convenient exit. But the same window would work if there were no easier way out.

iii. The glass from the window being on top of the mess

Guede can have no reason to do this: so the defence say this is not true. Well it may be that this was not accepted by the court and the reasons for decision will say so if they did not: but aside from on this board I have not seen that challenged. Filomena and the police both testified to it and I have seen nothing to counter it. In the absence of further information I take it as fact and it speaks against Guede acting alone: but AK and RS have a motive for staging a break in if they were involved. It points to a perpetrator from outside the house.

One of the piles of cloths was under the broken window. If this is the pile that had glass on top it would be unsurprising since more glass could have fallen out of the window after Rudy ransacked the room.

This statement from the Michili report:

The inner side of the door of the left shutter, in correspondence to the hole made in the glass, shows an evident scatch in the wood of irregular form, of about 2 cm (0.8 inch), with fraying of the woody fiber and some little splinters of glass stuck in.

Is apparently one of the keys that led the PMF crowd to incorrectly conclude that the rock must have been thrown from the inside. If you carefully read the full description of the window construction and look at the other photo of this window you will see that this is consistent with the rock being thrown from the outside.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Edited by Gaspode: 

Removed breach of Rule 12

 

[Fulcanelli]

What heinous crime? You're not talking about the time Rudy Guilty broke into the school, are you?

Firstly, that wasn't a "heinous" crime. Just more evidence of his criminal and sociopathic behaviour.

Secondly, the police didn't ignore it.

Since when is breaking and entering evidence of being a sociopath?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Using a stick to open the shutter was part of the scenario I posted yesterday.

Climbing to open the shutter would also be possible. It's also far less contrived than the prosecution theory that the rock was thrown from the inside.

Used a stick? What, he climbed up one handed (the other holding said stick) did he? Or, he did so from the ground? What was this stick...a barge pole? Or did it float down from Venice after falling off of a gondola?

Let's go even further...maybe he had a set of anti-gravity boots, or a rocket pack...what do you reckon?

 

[Prometheus]

Since when is breaking and entering evidence of being a sociopath?

Criminal behaviour is sociopathic by definition--unless you argue that crime somehow produces some kind of net good for society.