• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
I see that my premonition is already coming to pass.

What is there about an appeals decision based on review of a trial verdict that is going to be essentially different from the trial verdict itself, except for an overturning of the original verdict? If they affirm that verdict what will be changed about it which will cause you to reconsider your current objections?

There has been a great deal of idle chatter bandied about in this thread by partisans of Knox's innocence concerning the appeal and "new" evidence. I'm not from Italy and don't pretend to be particularly knowledgeable about their system (although I've learned a great deal here), but if the U.S. is the gold standard to compare to then very little if any "new" evidence will be permissible. Here, the appeals courts review procedure and compliance with the law. Virtually every reversal on appeal is based on a 'technicality'. By definition. In extremely limited circumstances it is possible to present something as evidence which was not presented as evidence in the original trial, but it is vanishingly rare and is of itself a cause for objection by the prosecution.

By way of example, using the DNA discussion, an appeal might try to claim "ineffective counsel" by saying that Knox's lawyers did not exhibit sufficient diligence in countering the prosecution's DNA experts, or didn't trouble themselves to provide sufficiently accomplished experts of their own.

But that would not free Knox. At best (a very unlikely best) it would garner her a re-trial. An appeal might overturn the verdict, but it would not exonerate her. And real life re-trials here, unlike TV portrayals, are not often to the advantage of the defendant.

If the Italian system has a different philosophy then that is yet another example of a possible superiority of their allegedly inferior legal machinery.
The first of the appeals is essentially a new trial, in which the evidence is re-examined (as I understand it, anyway). A new prosecutor and a new judge are appointed. So in that respect, it's entirely possible for a different conclusion to be reached based on the same evidence (as was the case in Mignini's own trial, of course, only the other way round - a not guilty verdict followed by a guilty verdict. The final appeal could reverse the decision again. As far as I'm aware, the first reversal was based on a re-consideration of the evidence rather than on a technicality).

So yes, in that respect the Italian system has a different philosophy. It's certainly one major point in favour of the Italian courts, that the accused are permitted such a lengthy and thorough appeals process (I'm not sure who you're accusing of calling the Italian system 'inferior', but I've certainly never said that).
 
Last edited:
Maybe I'm reiterating something for the n-th time myself, but the search function hasn't given me something specific in this thread.
Further caveat: because I'm not that immersed in the reporting about the case this is speculation.
That being said: In the scenario with Rudy throwing a stone into the window from outside and then climbing up the wall there are two things that I find intriguing but can't answer myself.
The first thing is: Could he have known that Meredith was right next door to the room he wanted to climb in through? (Light from the window giving it away?) Wouldn't he want to avoid owners if possible?
The second thing: Wouldn't have throwing in the window given him away? The stone hitting glass and shutter must have at least produced some noise. Would that change anything and if so what?
 
Just seeing a light on in the cottage would not reveal if the cottage is occupied since people leave lights on in the hope that it will deter burglers. Lights out also does not imply no occupants since they could just be asleep.

The burgler could try ringing the bell but then they need an excuse for ringing that late and many people at home alone will not answer the door after dark.

The surest way to determine that the house is empty is to chuck a big rock through the window and wait a few minutes to see if someone peeks out.
 
Maybe I'm reiterating something for the n-th time myself, but the search function hasn't given me something specific in this thread.
Further caveat: because I'm not that immersed in the reporting about the case this is speculation.
That being said: In the scenario with Rudy throwing a stone into the window from outside and then climbing up the wall there are two things that I find intriguing but can't answer myself.
The first thing is: Could he have known that Meredith was right next door to the room he wanted to climb in through? (Light from the window giving it away?) Wouldn't he want to avoid owners if possible?
The second thing: Wouldn't have throwing in the window given him away? The stone hitting glass and shutter must have at least produced some noise. Would that change anything and if so what?

Throwing a large rock through a window would have created a lot of noise. Even a sound sleeper would have been awakened. A burglar might do so just to verify that nobody is home. If lights turn on after the window is broken, the burglar just sneaks away into the dark.

The most likely scenario is Rudy Guede breaking the window and climbing into the cottage while it was empty and Meredith coming home shortly afterwards.
 
Throwing a large rock through a window would have created a lot of noise. Even a sound sleeper would have been awakened. A burglar might do so just to verify that nobody is home. If lights turn on after the window is broken, the burglar just sneaks away into the dark.

The most likely scenario is Rudy Guede breaking the window and climbing into the cottage while it was empty and Meredith coming home shortly afterwards.

I could accept this explanation...Except for 1 thing...1 tinsy bit of logic here:


Ok, so we're expected to believe that Guede is a "professional" burglar, given the attention to his priors. I'll allow that this is possible, even likely. Then we're expected to believe that he broke into this house through the hardest window to access. Believable, but not quite so likely. We're expected to believe that he broke into Filomena's room where he left no evidence of his being there (other than a broken window) and yet managed to leave evidence of his being in other parts of the house.

Still believable, but now we're starting to tip the scales into the unbelievable due to the number of coincidences.

Ok, so let's continue.

So he breaks into Filomena's room, rifles through her belongings, and yet steals nothing. Not much of a professional burglar, but ok. He then decides, in the middle of burglarizing this house, that he has to use the facilities. Now, we're expected to believe that rather than leave the house with whatever valuables he's found (none, remember), and find a safe place to do his business, he, a professional burglar, uses the bathroom in the cottage.

Now we're just getting way past believable.

Then we're expected to believe that Meredith came home just as Rudy was finishing his business. That rather than simply try to sneak out of the cottage/run away, Rudy decides to attack, rape, and kill Meredith.

I can understand that he would be reluctant to take the laptop after a murder. However, we are expected to believe that he would take 2 cell phones that could be traced back to the murdered girl far more easily than a laptop, as well as her credit/debit card(s). That just doesn't make any sense at all. Now we are so far into the coincidences and back-stepping that the logic-gymnastics required are worthy of a Gold medal (even if they are underage - *cough*china*cough*).



Look, people, the logic-nastics that are required to believe Guede acted alone and this was a mere burglary turned homicide are simply astounding. And sure, bits here and there could be believed to point to this - but when we add the sum of those bits together, it's just not a believable story any longer.


Given the dubious nature of this string of coincidences, coupled with the forensics on the body, we lean very strongly to multiple assailants. We've determined Guede was one, we're looking for at least 1 more - if not 2 and that requires that this was not merely a burglary gone wrong.

So we move on to the rest of what evidence has been collected.

First and foremost, we look to those who had easy access to the cottage and find that out of everyone with access, Amanda and Raf have no solid, credible alibi for that particular evening. In fact, they even acted differently than normal that night. That in, and of, itself is not evidence against them - but it sure doesn't help.

Then we find Amanda's DNA mixed in with Meredith's blood. Again, not 100% proof of Amanda's guilt - but tied together with the lack of an alibi, it really starts to look bad.

Then we get into Amanda's "bad memories", her obfuscation regarding Lumumba, the footprint in Filomena's room, the footprint in the bathroom that implicates Raf (who was her alibi for the night), Raf's DNA on the bra clasp, Raf's admission that Meredith had contact with the suspected murder weapon with a made-up story to explain it, etc.

That's about as unlucky a set of coincidences as could occur to put two innocent kids behind bars, I must say.
 
many people at home alone will not answer the door after dark.

The surest way to determine that the house is empty is to chuck a big rock through the window and wait a few minutes to see if someone peeks out.

... 'chuck a big rock through the window' from the inside... (then tell authorities your boss did it!).
 
The most likely scenario is Rudy Guede breaking the window and climbing into the cottage while it was empty and Meredith coming home shortly afterwards.

The most likely scenario is Guede saw Meredith approach Pergola 7, was let in by Meredith on the excuse he was ill from the bad kebab he ate. Knox/Sollecito arrive while he was taking a poop. Guede runs from the unflushed poop deposit and into the ruckus created by the two little angels against Meredith and joins in the violent prank.
 
Last edited:
I could accept this explanation...Except for 1 thing...1 tinsy bit of logic here:


Ok, so we're expected to believe that Guede is a "professional" burglar, given the attention to his priors. I'll allow that this is possible, even likely. Then we're expected to believe that he broke into this house through the hardest window to access. Believable, but not quite so likely. We're expected to believe that he broke into Filomena's room where he left no evidence of his being there (other than a broken window) and yet managed to leave evidence of his being in other parts of the house.

Still believable, but now we're starting to tip the scales into the unbelievable due to the number of coincidences.

Ok, so let's continue.

So he breaks into Filomena's room, rifles through her belongings, and yet steals nothing. Not much of a professional burglar, but ok. He then decides, in the middle of burglarizing this house, that he has to use the facilities. Now, we're expected to believe that rather than leave the house with whatever valuables he's found (none, remember), and find a safe place to do his business, he, a professional burglar, uses the bathroom in the cottage.

Now we're just getting way past believable.

If you were really concerned about logic, you would not be using argument by ridicule.

Rudy's bowel movement wasn't the kind that could have waited for him to get back home. So he used the available facilities.

Then we're expected to believe that Meredith came home just as Rudy was finishing his business. That rather than simply try to sneak out of the cottage/run away, Rudy decides to attack, rape, and kill Meredith.

Earlier in this thread, we established that the only working latch on the front door of the cottage is a deadbolt that requires a key from both sides. Rudy may indeed have tried to sneak out the front door. But the locked door would have prevented that. At some point he encountered Meredith. It's easy to see how this could escalate into a fight.

I can understand that he would be reluctant to take the laptop after a murder. However, we are expected to believe that he would take 2 cell phones that could be traced back to the murdered girl far more easily than a laptop, as well as her credit/debit card(s). That just doesn't make any sense at all. Now we are so far into the coincidences and back-stepping that the logic-gymnastics required are worthy of a Gold medal (even if they are underage - *cough*china*cough*).

Why would you assume that Rudy would act in an entirely rational manner?

Look, people, the logic-nastics that are required to believe Guede acted alone and this was a mere burglary turned homicide are simply astounding. And sure, bits here and there could be believed to point to this - but when we add the sum of those bits together, it's just not a believable story any longer.

The unbelievable theory is the one being sold by the Perugia prosecutor.

Amanda and Raffaele, two young lovers who only met a week earlier, find out unexpectedly that they have a free night. But instead of spending it together getting stoned and having sex, they go out and recruit Rudy to help them sexually abuse Amanda's flatmate. Rudy isn't a close friend they have known for a long time. He barely knows Amanda and has never been seen socializing with her. He has apparently never met Raffaele. But suddenly he is a trusted conspirator.
 
... 'chuck a big rock through the window' from the inside... (then tell authorities your boss did it!).

All the evidence supports the rock being thrown through the window from the outside. The scratch on the shade, the glass on the sill, the glass on the floor in front of the bed, the rock found inside the room. This is all hard evidence that we can see in the photos taken by the investigators shortly after the crime. What does the prosecution have to support its theory?
 
Once again the claim is made that the rock was thrown from the inside without explaining the physics.

Do not expect me to do the defence's work. They had a try at explaining the absurdity of it all. They will have another try on appeal. The chances of turning the broken window episode around look dim.

The prosecution did its job and it prevailed. Are we to believe the investigators, their supervisors and the judges hearing this case are conspiring to subvert physics?

If so, where was the defence?
 
All the evidence supports the rock being thrown through the window from the outside. The scratch on the shade, the glass on the sill, the glass on the floor in front of the bed, the rock found inside the room. This is all hard evidence that we can see in the photos taken by the investigators shortly after the crime. What does the prosecution have to support its theory?

The photos, forensic investigator's analysis, the description of how the final Filomena scene came to be. Filomena's own testimony.

It was all laid out in court and the defence failed to straighten the prosecution's findings.

That is an even bigger mystery than the prosecution's theory of events.
 
All the evidence supports the rock being thrown through the window from the outside. The scratch on the shade, the glass on the sill, the glass on the floor in front of the bed, the rock found inside the room. This is all hard evidence that we can see in the photos taken by the investigators shortly after the crime. What does the prosecution have to support its theory?

Ahh. Can you prove that Guede throw the rock?
 
If you were really concerned about logic, you would not be using argument by ridicule.
This is not argument from ridicule (which isn't actually fallacious, anyhow). This is recounting all the points which have been raised by the "Pro-Amanda's-an-angel" crowd (and that is ridicule).

Rudy's bowel movement wasn't the kind that could have waited for him to get back home. So he used the available facilities.
So, he wasn't feeling well - yet he was well enough to climb into the hardest window to access and then following his bowel movement was well enough to attack/rape/murder Meredith (an accomplished martial-artist) all on his own with little signs of struggle on her body? Again, we're past the border and into unbelievability.




Earlier in this thread, we established that the only working latch on the front door of the cottage is a deadbolt that requires a key from both sides. Rudy may indeed have tried to sneak out the front door. But the locked door would have prevented that. At some point he encountered Meredith. It's easy to see how this could escalate into a fight.
That's the best you have to offer?

Rudy is/was a professional burglar. How would he have left if Meredith had not come home and he hadn't the keys? Even if he'd been confronted by Meredith and managed to overpower her in spite of her martial arts skills, why did he then proceed to murder her in such a brutal manner?

Again, we get into multiple assailants - which leaves an actual burglary as unrealistic.


Why would you assume that Rudy would act in an entirely rational manner?
Why wouldn't we?


The unbelievable theory is the one being sold by the Perugia prosecutor.

Amanda and Raffaele, two young lovers who only met a week earlier, find out unexpectedly that they have a free night. But instead of spending it together getting stoned and having sex, they go out and recruit Rudy to help them sexually abuse Amanda's flatmate. Rudy isn't a close friend they have known for a long time. He barely knows Amanda and has never been seen socializing with her. He has apparently never met Raffaele. But suddenly he is a trusted conspirator.

They'd met days before. Witnesses saw all 4 of them together mere days before the murder. Moreover, the Prosecution story is so much more believable than all the events that the Defense attempted to portray as coincidences that it was a unanimous verdict. I'd say that's a pretty convincing story from the Prosecution and a pretty unconvincing story from the Defense. YMMV.
 

This has been discussed before in this very thread, Kestrel.


ETA: But, just because I'm feeling nice (not really), this is from the PMF website timeline:

Tuesday 30th October, 2007

1630 - 1700 A new witness, around 40 years old and known only as ’Fabio‘, has given testimony that he saw all three suspects together with Meredith: ’…I used to go to the University of Foreigners and I knew the house in via della Pergola because my friend from Florence lived there a few years ago. I remember that mid-afternoon on October30, more or less between 4′30-5pm, I was in front of the pizzeria Contrappunto because I had just parked my car near the building. I noticed four young people coming out of the gate which leads to the house in via della Pergola. They were walking two by two; …Kercher Meredith with Sollecito Raffaele and behind them, Amanda Knox with a young black man who looked very similar to Rudy Guede, although he was partially covered by Sollecito. I just caught a glimpse of him. I know him by sight because I often used to see him in front of the University for Foreigners while he was handing out fliers for the Merlin pub, I think. This was around three years ago when I used to go to the University for Foreigners. I’m 99% sure that the young black man walking with Amanda on October30 was Rudy Guede. Then, when I got my car, it started raining hard. They were wearing dark clothes, except Amanda who stood out because she was wearing a red, eighties-style coat. I only knew Rudy out of the four. I recognised them without a shadow of doubt when I saw their photos in the papers and on television after the murder. The four came out of the gate and were going towards Piazza Grimana.’
 
Last edited:
This has been discussed before in this very thread, Kestrel.

ETA: But, just because I'm feeling nice (not really), this is from the PMF website timeline:

I had heard about Fabio Gioffredi. The guy who showed up a year later claiming to have seen Amanda in a coat she didn't own, Raffaele on a day he was somewhere else and recognized Rudy from a job Rudy never had. But since you said "witnesses", I was wondering who the other ones were.
 
Do not expect me to do the defence's work. They had a try at explaining the absurdity of it all. They will have another try on appeal. The chances of turning the broken window episode around look dim.

The prosecution did its job and it prevailed. Are we to believe the investigators, their supervisors and the judges hearing this case are conspiring to subvert physics?

If so, where was the defence?

Reversal of the burden of proof followed by an appeal to authority.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom