Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[shuttlt]

And I will tell you exactly the same thing I told you when you posted it the first time. All it demonstrates and this we have always known (there is nothing new here) that the door often had to be locked with a key from the OUTSIDE, when going OUTSIDE. It was not stated that they also had to lock it with a key from 'inside' when going inside. Inside, they had access to the latch. And while the latch may have had it's automatic function broken, where it no longer clicked locked simply by the door being pulled shut, it does not therefore follow that it had to have a key used from the inside in order to close the door from the inside. And since nobody has given testimony that was the case then we cannot accept it as being so.

I think I've said this before, but I have a door with a very similar fault to the one Fulcanelli describes. In fact it packed in yesterday and the door couldn't be opened from the inside at all.

 

[Fulcanelli]

This is not intrinsically different from American approaches. It is not needful for a person to be a suspect to obtain a wiretap authorization. "Probable cause" is required, but that isn't always the same thing. Usually, perhaps, but not exclusively.

Apparently the processes involved in obtaining wiretap authorization in Italy are more convoluted than even here in the states, since my understanding is that Mignini's terrible transgression was to have wiretapped a phone with a judge's consent.

Could you provide a little background on the circumstances in which a wiretap authorization is obtained there?

Well, here you put your finger on why Mignini was so perplexed that he'd been found guilty on his illegal wire tapping charge and why he says this is one of the primary grounds for his appeal. Mignini obtained permission from a magistrate for those taps and there would also be documentation for that.

What the exact criteria is for being granted permission from a magistrate for a tap is, I don't know. That would be a question best put to one of the Italian legal experts on PMF.

 

[katy_did]

If he expected to be tied to the crime scene then there would have been no additional risk in taking the laptops, ipod etc... I guess he could have made the judgement about how likely he already was to be identified after he had already left the scene.

Yes, that's a good point. I would guess that he was in a rush to leave, not knowing if/when the other flatmates were coming back, and simply grabbed what was in her purse/pockets (possibly wouldn't even have bothered with those, if he didn't need the keys).

I don't think that the possibility that the cards could have been taken to stage a theft can be ruled out, based on the evidence (all we know is that the cards are missing), but I also don't think the possibility that Guede took them can be ruled out either. Any objection that applies to Guede taking them also applies to Knox and Sollecito. If it makes no sense that he would take the cards, why would Knox and Sollecito have tried to pretend he did? We could argue they weren't thinking clearly at the time and just grabbed them, but exactly the same could be argued of Guede, who may have simply acted on the possibility he could use them without thinking it through. They're small and so would have been easier for Knox and Sollecito to take to stage a theft, but they would also have been easier to take in an actual theft, easy to dispose of, and much less noticeable than a couple of laptop bags. I guess my argument is just that there is no evidence to definitively rule out the possibility that he took them, any more than there is for Knox and Guede taking them.

 

[shuttlt]

Is a motivations report going to published on Mignini's conviction?

 

[katy_did]

And I will tell you exactly the same thing I told you when you posted it the first time. All it demonstrates and this we have always known (there is nothing new here) that the door often had to be locked with a key from the OUTSIDE, when going OUTSIDE. It was not stated that they also had to lock it with a key from 'inside' when going inside. Inside, they had access to the latch. And while the latch may have had it's automatic function broken, where it no longer clicked locked simply by the door being pulled shut, it does not therefore follow that it had to have a key used from the inside in order to close the door from the inside. And since nobody has given testimony that was the case then we cannot accept it as being so.

You do have to admit though, that the evidence indicates it most probably was locked with a key. Knox talks about needing to close it with the key, and then mentions going outside to take out the garbage, implying they used a key to close it when inside the house too.

The evidence I've provided heavily implies the door was locked with a key from either side. Knox specifically mentions twice that a key was used; she doesn't simply say 'we needed to lock it'. I think my evidence is more convincing than your total lack of evidence.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Surely they didn't wait until he was on the stand to ask him these questions? You can't surely mean that the first time the prosecution quiz their experts is on the stand, or shortly before? I must be misinterpreting you.

Of course not. The police knew from very early in the case (not the very first days, but reasonably early).

 

[Fulcanelli]

You do have to admit though, that the evidence indicates it most probably was locked with a key. Knox talks about needing to close it with the key, and then mentions going outside to take out the garbage, implying they used a key to close it when inside the house too.

The evidence I've provided heavily implies the door was locked with a key from either side. Knox specifically mentions twice that a key was used; she doesn't simply say 'we needed to lock it'. I think my evidence is more convincing than your total lack of evidence.

Not really. Simply because if a key was a REQUIREMENT to get OUT of the cottage, we would certainly have heard that testified in the trial...it is hardly a mere 'minor detail'.

I would also add, IF there is a requirement to use keys to get out of the cottage (even if there isn't in fact) the keys would have been unlikely to have been in her purse or pocket, put rather put down on a side or table somewhere (ditto the phones). That's actually what most people do with their keys. They don't want to be having to rummage through their purse for them every time they have to take out the rubbish, answer the door or pop out for 5 minutes.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Yes, that's a good point. I would guess that he was in a rush to leave, not knowing if/when the other flatmates were coming back, and simply grabbed what was in her purse/pockets (possibly wouldn't even have bothered with those, if he didn't need the keys).

Except he didn't, there's NO BLOOD in the purse, or on the zip or on the phones. I would also argue that neither is there any in the inside of Meredith's pockets, since had their been, I'm sure the defence would have raised it. Therefore, not only is there no evidence to support your argument, in this particular aspect the evidence disproves it.

But look, let's get down to the real nub of the whole issue. The lone wolf argument requires huge amounts of intellectual gymnastics and the ignoring of much evidence in order to be made to fit. In short, it requires the hammering of a square peg into a round hole. The multiple attacker conclusion, involving Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy does not. This makes the latter the simplest explanation (as well as the only one that actually works) and would therefore be the one Occam would choose.

 

[Oliebol]

Except he didn't, there's NO BLOOD in the purse, or on the zip or on the phones. I would also argue that neither is there any in the inside of Meredith's pockets, since had their been, I'm sure the defence would have raised it. Therefore, not only is there no evidence to support your argument, in this particular aspect the evidence disproves it.

There was also no blood on the front door handle. So how did he get out? Did somebody hold the door open for him?
He must have gone into the bathroom and washed his hands before he went back into the bedroom, took the credit cards and phones, stepped in blood and left the house.

But look, let's get down to the real nub of the whole issue. The lone wolf argument requires huge amounts of intellectual gymnastics and the ignoring of much evidence in order to be made to fit. In short, it requires the hammering of a square peg into a round hole. The multiple attacker conclusion, involving Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy does not. This makes the latter the simplest explanation (as well as the only one that actually works) and would therefore be the one Occam would choose.

I am sure, if it were true that Rudy "only" raped the victim while Amanda and Raffaele murdered her, Rudy would have spoken out, even if in terms of sentence it wouldn't have made a difference to him.

 

[Fulcanelli]

There was also no blood on the front door handle. So how did he get out? Did somebody hold the door open for him?
He must have gone into the bathroom and washed his hands before he went back into the bedroom, took the credit cards and phones, stepped in blood and left the house.



I am sure, if it were true that Rudy "only" raped the victim while Amanda and Raffaele murdered her, Rudy would have spoken out, even if in terms of sentence it wouldn't have made a difference to him.

Removed during the clean-up? Perhaps most of it had rubbed off/dried off his hands by the time he got to the door? Maybe the door was already open?

What we know for sure is that his hands were wet with blood when he handled the purse, so had he also opened it and gone inside there should also be blood on the zip and inside it and on anything he picked up at that moment (phones) to remove from the room. There was also blood on Meredith's door handle (inside handle).

We can also see by the pattern of his bloody footprints that they head straight out the room and down the corridor out of the cottage...they do not stop and turn, which he would have had to have done had he locked Meredith's door. Therefore, he did not lock the door.

If Rudy had 'only raped' the victim as you put it (it was actually a sexual assault), while the others murdered her, he would have no reason to say so since it still would mean he is guilty of murder and change nothing, other then to admit his guilt and remove all hope of his being acquitted.

 

[Kestrel]

Oh, I agree. Nobody should be put under surveillance without proper procedures being followed. The problem is that we are. We all are. Wiretaps are sort of so-Seventies. There are other ways to follow people. The cell towers were brought into evidence and none of those people were properly consulted before that happened.

The cell towers were used as proof that Patrick Lumumba was at the cottage and therefore guilty of murder. We know from multiple witnesses that Patrick was at his bar at that time. If you know how cell phones work, you should understand that connections are not always via the closest tower.

 

[Dan O.]

Do we have Rudy's footprints going into the small bathroom when he fetches the towel?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Do we have Rudy's footprints going into the small bathroom when he fetches the towel?

No. So, either:

a) He did not have blood on the soles of his trainers at that earlier point when he went into the bathroom to retrieve the towels

or

b) He lied about going into the bathroom to get the towels

 

[katy_did]

Not really. Simply because if a key was a REQUIREMENT to get OUT of the cottage, we would certainly have heard that testified in the trial...it is hardly a mere 'minor detail'.

By your logic, surely we would also have heard if you DIDN'T need a key to get out of the cottage, since that would be an equally important detail? Your evidence here is basically...lack of evidence. That's pretty weak.

And besides, Micheli at least did believe it possible that Guede could have been 'locked in'. Any ideas as to how that could've been possible without a key?

I would also add, IF there is a requirement to use keys to get out of the cottage (even if there isn't in fact) the keys would have been unlikely to have been in her purse or pocket, put rather put down on a side or table somewhere (ditto the phones). That's actually what most people do with their keys. They don't want to be having to rummage through their purse for them every time they have to take out the rubbish, answer the door or pop out for 5 minutes.

Actually, they were most likely in her purse. We know this because Guede said she put them back in her purse after she came into the house; in his version, of course, he was there with her when she did so, and this is how he knows where they were.

The alternative, of course, is that he was the one to take them OUT of her purse. Isn't the fact of her keys being in her purse a slightly odd detail for him to just make up, unless he was trying to add credibility to his 'date' story by embellishing it with details he knew to be true? And how did he know this particular detail was true, unless he took the keys out of her purse himself?

For that matter, how did he know her money was missing? He claimed that it was missing before the attack happened, and that Meredith blamed Amanda. Doesn't that sound rather like the kind of story you'd make up if you knew that money had been taken, and were trying to create a plausible cover story to make sure you weren't blamed for it?

 

[shuttlt]

Perhaps if we asked FOA nicely they would answer all our questions by making the transcripts and case files public?

 

[katy_did]

No. So, either:

a) He did not have blood on the soles of his trainers at that earlier point when he went into the bathroom to retrieve the towels

or

b) He lied about going into the bathroom to get the towels

You forgot:

(c) He took his shoes off so as not to leave any prints, and put them back on again in the corridor before he left.

 

[Fulcanelli]

By your logic, surely we would also have heard if you DIDN'T need a key to get out of the cottage, since that would be an equally important detail? Your evidence here is basically...lack of evidence. That's pretty weak.

Hardly. Why would we need testimony to establish or disprove something nobody had suggested in the first place?

And besides, Micheli at least did believe it possible that Guede could have been 'locked in'. Any ideas as to how that could've been possible without a key?

I think your stretching things, he didn't conclude that.

[katy_did"]Actually, they were most likely in her purse. We know this because Guede said she put them back in her purse after she came into the house; in his version, of course, he was there with her when she did so, and this is how he knows where they were.[/quote]

Got a quite?

The alternative, of course, is that he was the one to take them OUT of her purse. Isn't the fact of her keys being in her purse a slightly odd detail for him to just make up, unless he was trying to add credibility to his 'date' story by embellishing it with details he knew to be true? And how did he know this particular detail was true, unless he took the keys out of her purse himself?

And still you ignore the blood, or to be precise, the lack thereof.

For that matter, how did he know her money was missing? He claimed that it was missing before the attack happened, and that Meredith blamed Amanda. Doesn't that sound rather like the kind of story you'd make up if you knew that money had been taken, and were trying to create a plausible cover story to make sure you weren't blamed for it?

You are quite right in that his knowledge of that fact does not match the scenario put forward by the judges in the Motivations Report. Good point actually.

However, his knowledge of that fact is not evidence that he took it. Also, as far as he was aware, the police didn't even know about the missing money when he wrote his diary (they either didn't know, or hadn't released that information to the press). It therefore would be strange on his part to alert the authorities to a crime they didn't appear to know about that he himself had committed, even if accusing someone else of it. Best to keep quiet about it. Blame someone else for the murder and if you are believed, the police will simply think the people you have accused also committed any other crimes at the scene as well. There's no need to provide explanations for other crimes.

 

[Fulcanelli]

You forgot:

(c) He took his shoes off so as not to leave any prints, and put them back on again in the corridor before he left.

Why?

He took them off so as not to leave prints, but put them on in the corridor so he could leave footprints all the way down the corridor?

Does this 'Mr leave bloody fingerprints and footprints everywhere and poo in the loo' sound like someone to you who gave a moment's thought or concern to the leaving of prints? Clearly not.

Despite the fact the prints show his walking cleanly from the room out the cottage. There is no indication he stopped and put shoes on in the pattern of those prints.

 

[Dan O.]

The blood did get carried into the bathroom to leave the print on the mat yet there is no trail of bloody footprints from Meredith's room into the bathroom.

 

[Kestrel]

You forgot:

(c) He took his shoes off so as not to leave any prints, and put them back on again in the corridor before he left.

Or as I posted earlier, Rudy took his shoes off so he could rape Meredith and wasn't wearing them when he visited the small bathroom to clean up.