Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[43degreesNorth]

9:00 PM - Guede breaks the window in Filomena Romanelli’s room and uses it to gain entry, using either the planter box adjacent to the window...as a starting point.

And how is that possible? Has anyone tried to recreate this as a possible point of entry?

 

[katy_did]

@katy_did: The report doesn't exactly reject the prosecution position directly (on anything, actually, which is quite frustrating) but what he does say is that "The postal police believed they arrived at 12.35", and follows it with "The postal police arrived shortly before 13.00" (i.e. at about 12.56-12.58, which is what Bongiorno argued).

Does the sentencing report specify that the Polizia arrived at the cottage between 12:56 and 12:58? Cite?

I've always had some issues with the precise timing of the events between the Polizia finding the pair at the crimescene and and the discovery of Meredith's body. We know for certain the calls were made before the discovery but not that they were made before the Polizia were observable at the top of the drive from someone standing where the two were found.

The carpark CCTV is inconclusive because of the field of view and the irregularity of the recording. Does the sentencing report state otherwise? Cite?

I think you might be misunderstanding the purpose of the sentencing report. It's not some sort of evaluation of the prosecution case, in which each argument is listed and the judge puts a tick or a cross depending on whether or not he agrees with it. It's explaining the reasoning behind the decision, which naturally focuses on those aspects of the prosecution case he agreed with, not those he rejected. For instance, nowhere does Massei explicitly state "The prosecution's theory that the scene in the bedroom was "staged" to look more like a sexual assault and that Meredith's bra was cut off after death is a big bunch of crap". We just have to assume he rejected that theory because it's nowhere in the report.

Raffaele's 112 call played no part in Massei's decision, from which we infer he rejected the prosecution's argument. He also makes a clear distinction between what the postal police believed (that they arrived at 12.35) and what he believes to be fact ("The postal police arrived shortly before 1"). If you read PMF when they were discussing this, you'd know that Massei also uses the sequence of events in which the Carabinieri were called before the postal police arrived as an integral part of his reasoning.

At this point the 112 call myth ranks alongside Raffaele's shoe print as a part of the prosecution case which has been discredited. But if you believe Massei thinks otherwise, the onus is on you to 'cite'.

 

[Fine]

And how is that possible? Has anyone tried to recreate this as a possible point of entry?

_____________________

Yes an attempt was made. I believe it was one of the defense attorneys attempting to scale the wall. (See the photo on PMF> Gallery.) The guy was left standing on the grate covering the lower window, his hands on the ledge outside Filomena's window....but unable to bring himself onto the ledge outside of Filomena's window.

If he had succeeded, the LONE WOLFERS would be shouting "Success"!
Since he failed, the LONE WOLFERS prefer not to talk about it.

///

 

[43degreesNorth]

_____________________

Yes an attempt was made. I believe it was one of the defense attorneys attempting to scale the wall. (See the photo on PMF> Gallery.) The guy was left standing on the grate covering the lower window, his hands on the ledge outside Filomena's window....but unable to bring himself onto the ledge outside of Filomena's window.

If he had succeeded, the LONE WOLFERS would be shouting "Success"!
Since he failed, the LONE WOLFERS prefer not to talk about it.

///

Charlie said from the flower planter at the front entrance to the house

 

[LondonJohn]

_____________________

Yes an attempt was made. I believe it was one of the defense attorneys attempting to scale the wall. (See the photo on PMF> Gallery.) The guy was left standing on the grate covering the lower window, his hands on the ledge outside Filomena's window....but unable to bring himself onto the ledge outside of Filomena's window.

If he had succeeded, the LONE WOLFERS would be shouting "Success"!
Since he failed, the LONE WOLFERS prefer not to talk about it.

///

I think the demonstration was probably more intended to show that a person of Guede's height could easily manoeuvre himself into a position where his feet were well supported and his hands could get a firm purchase on Filomena's window ledge. From there, it's not irrational to hypothesise that a fit, 20-year-old, former semi-pro basketball player could fairly easily pull himself up by his arms onto the ledge. Whether a member of the defence legal team could also accomplish this physical action seems to be somewhat moot, wouldn't you say?

 

[LondonJohn]

Charlie said from the flower planter at the front entrance to the house

The defence only needs to show that entry to the house was physically possible via at least one route (and obviously a route which is not contradicted by proven evidence regarding the exterior condition of the house). The defence does not have to prove which of the potential possible routes was chosen.

 

[Fine]

Charlie said from the flower planter at the front entrance to the house

_____________________

Here's what Charlie said: "9:00 PM - Guede breaks the window in Filomena Romanelli’s room and uses it to gain entry, using either the planter box adjacent to the window or the bars on the downstairs window as a starting point."

I don't know about any attempt to "swing" from the planter box to the ledge outside of Filomena's window. Maybe Charlie knows.

///

 

[Fine]

I think the demonstration was probably more intended to show that a person of Guede's height could easily manoeuvre himself into a position where his feet were well supported and his hands could get a firm purchase on Filomena's window ledge. From there, it's not irrational to hypothesise that a fit, 20-year-old, former semi-pro basketball player could fairly easily pull himself up by his arms onto the ledge. Whether a member of the defence legal team could also accomplish this physical action seems to be somewhat moot, wouldn't you say?

_________________

Yea, sure. Like shaking hands with a pretty woman demonstrates how easy it would be to seduce her.

What the LONE WOLFERS can never tell us is this: What's the next move? Climbing from point A to point X is always a series of moves, using one's hands and feet, A, B, C,...X.
Maybe you'd like to answer the question LondonJohn, from standing on the grate of the lower window, just what is THE NEXT move? Enough of this "not irrational to hypothesise" talk.

///

 

[Amazer]

I think the demonstration was probably more intended to show that a person of Guede's height could easily manoeuvre himself into a position where his feet were well supported and his hands could get a firm purchase on Filomena's window ledge.

Okay, seems very limited in it's scope though. Any particular reason as to why they didn't continue up to the point that someone goes through the window?

From there, it's not irrational to hypothesise that a fit, 20-year-old, former semi-pro basketball player could fairly easily pull himself up by his arms onto the ledge. Whether a member of the defence legal team could also accomplish this physical action seems to be somewhat moot, wouldn't you say?

Not irrational perhaps. But I do question the fact that this climb would have been fairly easy. Clearly not so easy that the lawyer who climbed up the grill felt confident enough to climb up and through the window.

I have a nagging suspicion that I know exactly why the demonstration only went as far as it did, but perhaps you can shed a different light.

 

[Amazer]

The defence only needs to show that entry to the house was physically possible via at least one route (and obviously a route which is not contradicted by proven evidence regarding the exterior condition of the house). The defence does not have to prove which of the potential possible routes was chosen.

But the defense didn't show that. They only showed that it's possible to reach the window via that particular route. For reasons unknown they stopped there instead of going on till entry in the house was gained.

 

[katy_did]

_________________

Yea, sure. Like shaking hands with a pretty woman demonstrates how easy it would be to seduce her.

What the LONE WOLFERS can never tell us is this: What's the next move? Climbing from point A to point X is always a series of moves, using one's hands and feet, A, B, C,...X.
Maybe you'd like to answer the question LondonJohn, from standing on the grate of the lower window, just what is THE NEXT move? Enough of this "not irrational to hypothesise" talk.

///

From standing on the grating of the lower window it would be pretty easy, I would have thought. Certainly, both Micheli and Massei accepted it would have been possible to climb up, Micheli stating that the climber would need to be "athletic" but that it wouldn't take "a Spiderman" (hmmm, it just occurred to me that some of the articles on TJMK in which they say you'd need to be "Spiderman" to get up to the window may have been based on a google mistranslation of Micheli's report, where negatives are turned into positives, heh) while Massei objects that the climber would've left traces, but never says it would be impossible to climb up.

I think climbing up for someone like Guede (tall, athletic, probably done this sort of thing before) would've been straightforward. Personally I think he broke the window from close range while standing on the grating, though I can accept the point made by an earlier poster that getting onto the lower grating while holding the rock would've been tricky. But still, I don't think it would've been impossible: from a picture I was just looking at, it seems the bricks beneath the window might be from an earlier incarnation of the building, they seem to jut out a bit rather than be perfectly flat. If that's the case I think he could've gotten up to the grating fairly easily, even holding the rock, by using the bricks as a foothold.

Alternatively, perhaps he had his backpack with him, and carried the rock up that way. Or perhaps someone else was with him, not in the house itself, but just outside to give him a lift getting up to the grating and hand him the rock afterwards. Perhaps the person was keeping a look-out, tried to get Guede's attention when he saw Meredith approaching, but by that time Guede was in the bathroom; maybe he gave Guede a bit of money to leave the country, on the understanding that he wouldn't be dragged into it later. Maybe this is the mysterious "other man" Guede keeps talking about. Who knows?

The point is that to jump from 'this would've been a bit tricky' to 'the break-in was staged and AK and RS are the culprits which means they're guilty of murder' is a massive leap. There are many possibilities as to how Guede got in, including the possibility that he broke the window but wasn't able to climb up, finding another way to get in (maybe someone left a window open on the balcony, for example).

In the burglary in the lawyer's office, someone disabled the security alarm. It seems quite unlikely Guede would've known how to do this. Do we then conclude it was an inside job?

 

[LondonJohn]

Okay, seems very limited in it's scope though. Any particular reason as to why they didn't continue up to the point that someone goes through the window?


Not irrational perhaps. But I do question the fact that this climb would have been fairly easy. Clearly not so easy that the lawyer who climbed up the grill felt confident enough to climb up and through the window.

I have a nagging suspicion that I know exactly why the demonstration only went as far as it did, but perhaps you can shed a different light.

What's your nagging suspicion then? My not-so-nagging suspicion is that either the defence team did not have the authority to tamper with the window/shutters in order to complete the demonstration of entry, or even simply that the re-enactment person didn't want to risk dirtying or tearing his work clothes (and maybe he and the other defence lawyers presumed that a demonstration of how simple it would be to get both hands firmly on the window ledge with a firm foothold would easily lead rational people to conclude that the next step - pulling oneself up to the ledge - would be entirely feasible for a fit young man....).

But what's your nagging suspicion? Is it that the re-enactment person tried and failed to do the next step?

 

[bucketoftea]

Why are you all still trying to climb in through Filomena's window? All the physical evidence indicates that no such thing happened.

No footprints or trampled grass anywhere in the region of the window

No marks on the wall from the climber's shoes

Glass on window sill not disturbed

No hair/fibre/fingerprint/DNA/bent nail/any trace of any kind to show anyone climbed in through the window.

 

[43degreesNorth]

From standing on the grating of the lower window it would be pretty easy, I would have thought.

Stand on the grate and hold on to what? This isn't a ladder. Tell me how you would hold on to the top bit of grate and feet on the lower bit and reach the ledge from that position, please.

 

[Matthew Best]

Why are you all still trying to climb in through Filomena's window? All the physical evidence indicates that no such thing happened.

No footprints or trampled grass anywhere in the region of the window

No marks on the wall from the climber's shoes

Glass on window sill not disturbed

No hair/fibre/fingerprint/DNA/bent nail/any trace of any kind to show anyone climbed in through the window.

1. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The rest of this post, and most of the others about the possibility of climbing in through the window, seem to be an extended argument from incredulity.

 

[katy_did]

Stand on the grate and hold on to what? This isn't a ladder. Tell me how you would hold on to the top bit of grate and feet on the lower bit and reach the ledge from that position, please.

Erm, he would hold onto the sill or the shutter? Standing on the lower part of the grate would allow him to hold onto the sill/shutter, as you can see from the picture of the lawyer.

Your point is moot, in any case, since Massei and Micheli and the jury who visited the cottage accepted it would be possible to climb up. The only valid objection might be climbing up to the grate with the rock, and that's the issue I was addressing in my post.

 

[LondonJohn]

Ah here's another gem. Apparently, it's impossible for this to have been a real break-in, because Meredith would have heard the breaking glass, ascent, entry etc from her room, and she would have called the police. All of which is, of course, true - if Meredith was already at home when the window was broken.

What if - what if - the break in (if it was a break-in) occurred before Meredith arrived home. And what if the exterior shutters were actually open at the time of the break in, but that the intruder (Guede or otherwise) made the entirely rational decision to close the exterior shutters once he was in Filomena's room - in order to hide the broken window from any passers-by (or anyone returning to the house)? What if this is why Meredith didn't notice anything was amiss when she returned to the house at around 21.00?

What if this course of action resulted in witnesses correctly recalling that the shutters were almost fully closed the morning after the murder?

What if Filomena herself testified that she left her room in a rush on the day of the murder, that she had definitely opened the external shutters at some point that day, and that she could be in no way certain that she had closed them again before leaving? Oh wait, that's what she did testify...

 

[Amazer]

What's your nagging suspicion then? My not-so-nagging suspicion is that either the defence team did not have the authority to tamper with the window/shutters in order to complete the demonstration of entry, or even simply that the re-enactment person didn't want to risk dirtying or tearing his work clothes (and maybe he and the other defence lawyers presumed that a demonstration of how simple it would be to get both hands firmly on the window ledge with a firm foothold would easily lead rational people to conclude that the next step - pulling oneself up to the ledge - would be entirely feasible for a fit young man....).

The first one of the reasons seems the most likely, but perhaps someone can confirm this? The remainder not so much. Those are just poor excuses, not reasons for having this incomplete demonstration.

But what's your nagging suspicion? Is it that the re-enactment person tried and failed to do the next step?

I think that it would have become glaringly obvious that such a climb isn't quit as easy as the defense would have us believe. That such a climb would involve disturbing glass on the sill which by all accounts was not disturbed. That such a climb would have caused glass to fall from the sill to the ground below. That is my nagging suspicion.

 

[Amazer]

1. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

As long as were talking about Rudy, does the same hold true if we're discussing Amanda?

The rest of this post, and most of the others about the possibility of climbing in through the window, seem to be an extended argument from incredulity.

No, i do believe that it's possible to climb up and through the window. The lack of evidence that this is what really happened though tells me that it's very unlikely that this is what really happened.

 

[43degreesNorth]

Erm, he would hold onto the sill or the shutter? Standing on the lower part of the grate would allow him to hold onto the sill/shutter, as you can see from the picture of the lawyer.

You can't reach the ledge when your feet are at the bottom of the grate. To get feet to top of the grate you have to let go of the grate. So are we talking about 'pinch holds' on the brick that rock climbers use? i think not.