Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Bruce Fischer]

That's what I get for relying on accounts of witness testimony rather than relying on blogs.

The information that we have does not come from blogs. We have the court testimony. We know what evidence was presented in court. There is no bleach receipt. No bleach was purchased by Amanda.

 

[Fine]

I don't think Guede staged anything. If he had been operating at that level, he would have avoided leaving so much evidence.

What evidence is there, really, that the break-in was staged? We have verbal testimony about glass on top of clothing, which photos and video do not support. It is mere conjecture. The fact is that if someone was going to break into that cottage, they had two viable options - the balcony and Filomena's window. All the other windows within reach had iron grates. Nobody who has been to the place thinks it would be much of a feat for a man in good physical condition to get through that window. Moreover, a glass shard from the window was found in Meredith's room:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/glass_shard.jpg

Nobody talks about it much, but there it is.

________________________

Hi Charlie. Barbie says that "no one was ever able to explain" this shard of glass. (Angel Face, page 166.) But if it had come from the broken window in Filomena's room, that would have been easy to prove from a scientific examination......thickness of the glass, refractive index, chemical composition etc. Since Barbie conjectures that it came from a liquor bottle, the piece is probably curved, as suggested by the photo you kindly posted.

In my opinion, it was probably tracked in from the kitchen where the struggle with Meredith began, and where a drinking glass, bottle, or vase was broken....and later cleaned up. (OOOPS! I've said that dirty word.)

///

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Ah, yes, I see - Barbie's theory of the crime. "The broken glass on Meredith's floor that no one was ever able to explain was from liquor bottles."

The problem is that there was just the single piece and no sign of a broken bottle. It was a piece of just the right size and shape to become caught in the tread of a shoe. But, if one starts with the premise that the break-in was staged after the murder, then one must propose something like a broken liquor bottle, just as one must propose two knives to work out a scenario involving the knife from Raffaele's kitchen.

Could it have been carried into the room in the tread of a shoe belonging to someone other than Rudy? After all, Raffaele's shoes had a remarkably similar tread pattern to Rudy's, so anything that Rudy's shoes could have carried in the tread, Raffaele's shoes most likely could have done so as well.

I'm going to pull a play from the FoA (and co) playbook and suggest that the glass was moved unwittingly after the discovery of the body. Since there's no way to pinpoint when the glass was left in Meredith's room, I'm going to arbitrarily decree that it was left when the Police initially found the body - they had, after all, just inspected Filomena's room due to the "break-in".



Or, you know, we could approach this fairly and agree that there is no way to know who or when the glass was tracked into Meredith's room. It could just as easily have been carried in during the initial investigation as the night before. Hell, Amanda/Raffaele could have placed it there for all we know.

Would you care to address how the glass shards were not, at all, disturbed during Rudy's climb through the window? And not a reference to a court case where it was shown that the items beneath a window sill were not disturbed - because we're not debating that. We're discussing the climbing through of a window of a basement, but the entrance through a second floor window with minimal lower support once the suspect has begun entering the window.

 

[RoseMontague]

Ah well, it's not actually that hard to fit the theory with the known crime scene evidence. I suspect that what you or others might say is something like "What about Guede's bloody footprints leading straight from Meredith's room to the front door?". But there's a potential simple answer to this.

My theory* would go something like this:

1) Guede kills Meredith;
2) Guede goes to get towels from bathroom to clean up blood, and washes blood off his hands at the same time (leaving some of Meredith's blood in the batchroom);
3) Guede goes from the bathroom to Filomena's room to stage the break-in;
4) Guede goes to the front door to exit the house, but it's locked and he can't see any keys (lots of footprints in the kitchen/lounge, perhaps as Guede looks for keys there);
5) Guede re-enters Meredith's room, to get Meredith's keys from her handbag (leaving her blood and his DNA on the bag;
6) Guede takes the keys from the bag, and also opportunistically takes the purse and the mobile phones;
7) Guede exits Meredith's room for a second time since the murder, but this time he steps in her blood with one of his shoes on his way out;
8) Guede closes and locks Meredith's door behind him, and exits the front door - leaving the bloody shoeprint trail behind him.

* Note that I'm not suggesting that this IS what happened - but merely that it is an alternative scenario which also matches the evidence.

Thanks for the effort, but it needs a lot of work to work for me. Unlike Mary_H, I place a lot of importance on the break-in being staged or not. My reading of the Motivations report indicates to me that the judge/jury places a lot of importance on it as well. I had been certain about it being staged until I read the RS appeal giving a quote from a previous statement of Filomena's that the glass was not only on top of the clothes, it was mixed in and underneath. Now I am just almost positive it was staged. As far as who may have done the staging, Rudy exists only as a remote possibility on that one. It does not fit with the evidence that Rudy entered by that window. It does not fit with the evidence that the window was broken from a rock thrown from the outside. It does not fit with the evidence that Rudy staged the break-in. Who else could have staged a break in and why they would have staged it are very important questions, in my opinion.

 

[katy_did]

I always find that these early articles contain a wealth of information, katy, because they report the news that was being leaked spontaneously before the theory of the crime was developed. As I recall, the first police on the scene perceived the crime as an individual man-on-woman attack, and for some reason they speculated the burglary was staged.

When you compare their first impressions with the eventual theory put forth by the judge and the prosecution, it becomes apparent how far out Mignini had to go to come up with the ritualistic menage a quatre.

Yes, I'm only just starting to read the early Italian reports (which have so much more information - via prosecution leaks - than the US or UK ones) and it's fascinating to see how the theory was built up. On the one hand, there are the changes they had to make to add in new bits of evidence (the knife going from being a few centimetres long to being a 12" kitchen knife); on the other, it's as if they were already building up the basic plot, focusing on Meredith's friends and assuming the break-in to be staged (probably due to their assumption the person must have had a key to get into the downstairs flat) and they just needed the protagonists! No wonder it was so easy for them to switch Patrick for Rudy once the forensic results came out. It's as if they were just looking for someone to play that particular role; who it was wasn't all that important.

This article in Il Messagero, written after the arrest of Patrick, Amanda and Raffaele, actually states: "For the investigators, the inquiry is now closed, and there are no other suspects still at large". Rudy must've been sitting in Germany rubbing his hands together in glee!

I have never found the broken window discussion very interesting, because I don't think it has much bearing on who murdered Meredith. The issue strikes me as inscrutable, and seems to lead mostly to endless back-and-forth arguments about it, as opposed to questions about evidence that actually can be resolved.

Yes... I'm not sure it even had much bearing on the initial arrests of AK and RS, since I don't think the police concluded the break-in was staged from the evidence itself but, rather, decided it must have been staged since they were focusing on Meredith's friends (likely someone who had a key to the downstairs apartment).

Someone posted more transcripts from the bugged waiting room conversations over on PMF recently, and in one of them Amanda seems to be saying the police were asking her for the names of any tall men who'd visited the house (at least, I think it's 'tall' - 'alto' - unless that's slang for something else I'm not aware of!). If that's the case then presumably it's because the person would need to be tall to climb up to the window, suggesting the police hadn't completely ruled out the idea of the break-in being real at this stage. Most likely they were open to either idea, depending on who they suspected.

 

[katy_did]

The November 4 article in Corriere della Sera gives a bit more detail concerning some of the issues you highlight in the November 5 article. Contains information from witness statements giving names of possible acquaintances (North Africans) of Meredith, possible camera footage in one of the pubs from Halloween, and more.

http://archiviostorico.corriere.it/...va_suo_assassino_Trovate_co_9_071104164.shtml

Also read the November 6 article which adds to the previous two articles.

http://archiviostorico.corriere.it/...o_Meredith_amica_ore_dal_co_9_071106033.shtml

Thanks a lot for that, Christiana. The style of reporting's fascinating, the way it's all written like some kind of mystery novel ("the picture will be complete soon", "the solution to the 'whodunnit' could be close"). Interesting too that they seem focused on North African men at this point, whether because they some sort of evidence a black man could be involved, or just because several witnesses mentioned African men.

 

[katy_did]

So Rudy pulled himself up and into the room through the window sill without using his feet nor disturbing the glass on the window sill...

Again, Amanda's proponents ignore that which does not fit into their preferred scenario.

No one pulled themselves through that window the night of the murder. No one.

He'd likely have used the toes of his shoes, as I said, but I doubt he'd have walked up the wall leaving shoe prints. There isn't a lot of glass on the sill; perhaps he didn't need to disturb it. Maybe he did disturb some of it, but the police officer didn't notice the fragments of glass on the ground. Perhaps he placed the rock on the sill before climbing up himself, and broke the window from close range. Perhaps he broke and then opened the window while standing on the grating below, using the window frame to support himself as he climbed over the sill and into the room, clambering over but not dislodging the glass. Perhaps most of the glass fragments fell as the window was opened, rather than when it was broken.

There are any number of ways it could have happened, and Massei's theory has major problems too. If AK and RS broke the window as it was opened inward, how did the glass end up on the window sill? If the inner shutter was flat against the window as it was broken (leaving the mark on the shutter), how did glass end up all over the room? Isn't that a bit of a strange way to break a window anyway, holding the inner shutter against the window as you smash it...?

The fact the police didn't see anything suspicious enough to take pictures of it at the time speaks volumes, in my view. The only way the defence could challenge that evidence is to go back in time and look for glass on the floor/marks on the walls; otherwise it's just the police officer's word. What if the same thing applied to all the other bits of evidence that later turned out to be incorrect? "No, there are no photographs of Sollecito's shoe print in Meredith's room, but the police officer remembers it was definitely his"...

 

[katy_did]

I don't know if those are even Raffaele's words although they are presented in quotes. I don't approve of using sources or quotes without showing where and when the individual made the statement.

I think they're leaked extracts from his police statement (article here). I fully agree that it's difficult to make any judgment about it without knowing the full context, though (i.e. transcript/recording of the interrogation). I had a look for his account of what happened on Halloween, and Amanda did leave him at about 9 to go to Le Chic, before meeting up with him later on - the police statement sounds a bit like a mixture of the two nights.

According to the article the statement was taken at 10.40pm - very early on. Lends a bit of credence to Amanda's interrogation beginning at around 10.30. I wonder what led up to Raffaele's changed story?

ETA: Actually that time might be when Raffaele's interrogation began rather than ended, meaning they may have begun being questioned about the same time... Not sure on that one, but I suppose it would make more sense since there doesn't seem enough time otherwise.

 

[katy_did]

Nothing found at the cottage contradicts the premise that Guede broke the window and climbed through it.

There was a US case involving a man by the name of David Dowaliby whose stepdaughter was abducted and murdered by an intruder who climbed through a basement window. Police had no suspects, so they charged Dowaliby and his wife despite a complete lack of evidence. The judge directed a not guilty verdict against the wife, but David Dowaliby was convicted. During the trial, the prosecution made much of the claim that no one could have climbed through the window without knocking over items beneath it. Dowaliby commissioned a video shot that showed how easy it was to do that which the prosecution claimed was impossible, but his attorney lost it. (It was rediscovered after the trial.)

A police witness in the Dowaliby case also claimed there was dust on the window ledge, which would not have been there if someone had climbed through it. But, as in this case, crime scene photos failed to support the testimony.

Thanks, Charlie. Yeah, I think a case could probably be made for pretty much any break-in being 'faked', especially where there are no photos to support or contradict the police officer's testimony. Do you know when the evidence Massei relies on about the window (i.e. marks on the wall/glass on the floor) was first mentioned? Either option doesn't look great for the police: either they noticed those things (or lack of them) straight away but didn't think it important enough to photograph (raising the question of how hard they really looked), or they were asked whether they remembered them some time later, which makes the evidence just as unreliable.

 

[christianahannah]

I think they're leaked extracts from his police statement (article here). I fully agree that it's difficult to make any judgment about it without knowing the full context, though (i.e. transcript/recording of the interrogation). I had a look for his account of what happened on Halloween, and Amanda did leave him at about 9 to go to Le Chic, before meeting up with him later on - the police statement sounds a bit like a mixture of the two nights.

According to the article the statement was taken at 10.40pm - very early on. Lends a bit of credence to Amanda's interrogation beginning at around 10.30. I wonder what led up to Raffaele's changed story?

It would be a good guess that the words of Raffaele are exerpts from his November 5 statement and/or previous statements. If you read the paragraphs preceding you have Amanda's verbatim 5:45 a.m. statement (with some additional descriptive terms thrown in for effect).

I am not sure if you can pin the start of Amanda's formal interrogation to 10:30 or 10:40. She was interrupted talking to Filomena but that could have been the informal questioning in the waiting area. I am unclear to how long that questioning was done until Amanda was moved to a more formal setting.

 

[christianahannah]

Thanks a lot for that, Christiana. The style of reporting's fascinating, the way it's all written like some kind of mystery novel ("the picture will be complete soon", "the solution to the 'whodunnit' could be close"). Interesting too that they seem focused on North African men at this point, whether because they some sort of evidence a black man could be involved, or just because several witnesses mentioned African men.

The second article linked mentions Sophie giving information (possibly early November 4-5?) of new acquaintances of Meredith.

 

[christianahannah]

________________________

Hi Charlie. Barbie says that "no one was ever able to explain" this shard of glass. (Angel Face, page 166.) But if it had come from the broken window in Filomena's room, that would have been easy to prove from a scientific examination......thickness of the glass, refractive index, chemical composition etc. Since Barbie conjectures that it came from a liquor bottle, the piece is probably curved, as suggested by the photo you kindly posted.

In my opinion, it was probably tracked in from the kitchen where the struggle with Meredith began, and where a drinking glass, bottle, or vase was broken....and later cleaned up. (OOOPS! I've said that dirty word.)

///

Hello Fine. Are you the same Fine who posts at PMF? If so, I read with interest your theory of the new information of the witness in Amanda's appeal and why Nadeau might be lending some credence to this new witness.

I don't want to post your theory here without your okay so if you want to post it here I am sure it would garner some discussion.

 

[Supernaut]

I substantially agree with most of what you're saying. But I would still countenance that appearances can be deceptive. I think this case not only can be assessed without bringing AK's (or RS's) character into things, I actually think it should be assessed in this way. The case should only be judged on the evidence that is particular to the crime - and by-and-large this excludes not only character assessment, but also any prior history of criminal behaviour (or absence of criminal/antisocial behaviour). Those factors are only ever usually relevant at a sentencing stage, not when determining guilt or non-guilt.

And I believe that even after AK's personality / upbringing / life experiences / character have been stripped out from the analysis, there's still ample evidence to suggest that these convictions may be unsafe. I maintain that any argument along the lines of "It's unlikely that she did it because she was a UW Honors student / hippy / loved her mother / wouldn't hurt a fly etc" is not only intellectually bankrupt, but is also irrelevant to the case under discussion.

Don't get me wrong, I am very glad that those such as yourself, with such singular focus on the "the facts", are making an invaluable contribution, I would not want you to change what you're doing at all.

Nonetheless, Amanda was convicted largely as a result of character assassination by the Italian prosecution, which went 'viral' in the press and media, and it is this which needs redressing before her appeal gets underway.

I'm more than a little insulted that you would say this is an "intellectually bankrupt" argument.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

where is the DNA

Stilicho,

I'll ask again. Where is the DNA on Meredith's body from the person(s) who restrained Meredith?

 

[Mrs.Columbo]

Thanks, Charlie. Yeah, I think a case could probably be made for pretty much any break-in being 'faked', especially where there are no photos to support or contradict the police officer's testimony. Do you know when the evidence Massei relies on about the window (i.e. marks on the wall/glass on the floor) was first mentioned? Either option doesn't look great for the police: either they noticed those things (or lack of them) straight away but didn't think it important enough to photograph (raising the question of how hard they really looked), or they were asked whether they remembered them some time later, which makes the evidence just as unreliable.

I would like to indicate, that everything concerning the staged-break-in is described in great details in the Massei-report, page 35-41.
The following is a very small excerpt. Please excuse my bumpy translation.

Romanelli Filomena testified 07.02.2009 that she has closed the shelters (but not latched them) And that they are tight - not very easy to move.
So before smashing the window-glass with the stone it was neccessary to climb and open the shelters , pulling them outwards (with some effort)
Then, with a second climbing – we shall not forget, that this window is in height about 3 and ½ meters from the ground – one would have been able to smash this window with the stone. (how one would have been able to climb the wall carrying that big stone has to be explained separately!)
Brocci Gioia testified 23.04.2009 that neither the wall nor the ground below that window had shown any signs of footprints or tracks. There were no signs at all on the soil, on the vegetation. The ground was dump, it was raining on 30.10.2009 (testified 23.04.2009).

At some fotos of the crime scene from 02.11.2009 it is recorded that the shelters from Filomenas room are still not wide open.

 

[LondonJohn]

Don't get me wrong, I am very glad that those such as yourself, with such singular focus on the "the facts", are making an invaluable contribution, I would not want you to change what you're doing at all.

Nonetheless, Amanda was convicted largely as a result of character assassination by the Italian prosecution, which went 'viral' in the press and media, and it is this which needs redressing before her appeal gets underway.

I'm more than a little insulted that you would say this is an "intellectually bankrupt" argument.

Nooo you're misreading my intent - I'm a little insulted.....

I'm not arguing that character assessment (assassination?) could not have contributed to the guilty verdicts against AK and RS - far from it. I think that the smears (many of which were leaks) about AK's sex life and RS's alleged porn fetishes etc were potentially very damaging to them. But then that's what you can get when you have no sub-judice rules, and constant leaks from all angles....

My argument was that it's not acceptable to take the opposite line to try to demonstrate innocence (or even "non-guilt"). In other words, one can't argue that "good" character denotes innocence any more than "bad" character denotes guilt. And, incidentally, this is why juries in the UK are not allowed to be told about defendants' previous crimes (other than in a few specific circumstances, e.g. similar M.O's) when they are hearing a case. The guiding principle here is that just because Mr A has been convicted of robbing 10 banks before, this shouldn't have any bearing on trying to establish whether Mr A robbed bank number 11. His involvement in the robbery of bank 11 should only be assessed on evidence directly related to that particular crime.

 

[Mrs.Columbo]

addition

addition to my post about the break-in:

of course Filomena Romanelli has closed her window and the shelters

 

[RoseMontague]

The entire section on the break-in was provided to us as an early preview of the PMF translation here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5834900&postcount=7036

I don't view the Massei report as infallible by any means but this part gives a pretty effective argument against the window being broken from the outside as well as against Rudy entering by the window.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

The entire section on the break-in was provided to us as an early preview of the PMF translation here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5834900&postcount=7036

I don't view the Massei report as infallible by any means but this part gives a pretty effective argument against the window being broken from the outside as well as against Rudy entering by the window.

Filomena could not remember if she closed her shutters. The rock could have easily been thrown from the outside. The photographic evidence of the rock shows that this was a very possible scenario.

Anyone who has visited the cottage will tell you that the climb would have been an easy one for Rudy. We have two members of our group that have seen the window in person and both have stated that the window would have been easy to enter.

Here are the photographs showing the rock after it was thrown through the window.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/window.html

 

[RoseMontague]

I would like to indicate, that everything concerning the staged-break-in is described in great details in the Massei-report, page 35-41.
The following is a very small excerpt. Please excuse my bumpy translation.

Romanelli Filomena testified 07.02.2009 that she has closed the shelters (but not latched them) And that they are tight - not very easy to move.
So before smashing the window-glass with the stone it was neccessary to climb and open the shelters , pulling them outwards (with some effort)
Then, with a second climbing – we shall not forget, that this window is in height about 3 and ½ meters from the ground – one would have been able to smash this window with the stone. (how one would have been able to climb the wall carrying that big stone has to be explained separately!)
Brocci Gioia testified 23.04.2009 that neither the wall nor the ground below that window had shown any signs of footprints or tracks. There were no signs at all on the soil, on the vegetation. The ground was dump, it was raining on 30.10.2009 (testified 23.04.2009).

At some fotos of the crime scene from 02.11.2009 it is recorded that the shelters from Filomenas room are still not wide open.

I like the translation, btw. It reads easier than a lot I have seen. One comment on the ground being wet/damp. The outside bricks appear to have been painted white at some distant point in the past. I would think there would be some sign of climbing on the wall.