Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

How about the blood test coming back negative on those "bloody footprints". Is that something or what?

Indeed. It's very interesting. Very interesting indeed.

 

[Mrs.Columbo]

I thought the front door was supposed to be so exposed that merely stopping and locking it with a key already in hand (an otherwise normal occurrence) would be too suspicious. It seems like anything that is inconvenient to an innocence theory is too suspicious.

If anybody driving by sees a person on the front door of a house, the only thing they might think is - that a housemate is coming or leaving.
Completely normal.
Only exception if one knows the housemates are happy on holidays far away in Santo Domingo!

 

[LondonJohn]

__________________________

Except that if Rudy broke in through the window he wouldn't know that he needed the keys until he had left Meredith's room and came to the LOCKED front door. So then he's already in front of Filomena's room, ...why not just slip out the window, being such an athletic type guy?

///

Because (again) he'd know that he had a reasonable chance of finding keys to the door (if he didn't already have them in his possession by then). He would know, after all, that Meredith must have had keys to the front door somewhere in her possession. And (again), given the choice of climbing out of a window to escape versus opening the front door to escape, it doesn't take a Nobel laureate to figure out which would be more immediately suspicious to any passers-by..........

 

[tsig]

I think he really forced his way in through that window. The authorities have been adamant that the break-in was staged, just as they were adamant that the postal police showed up 20 minutes before Raffaele called the emergency number. But it is merely an assertion, unsupported by evidence.

Besides which, staging doesn't fit with the official theory of the crime. This is an area where it helps to have followed other cases. Staging is the act of someone who wants to avoid becoming a suspect, and killers who think like that want to be as far away as possible when the body is discovered, if they have that option. If Amanda and Raffaele had killed Meredith, and were concerned that they might be suspects, they would have let someone else find the body. Not call Filomena and say "there's blood in the bathroom and I think someone has been in the house."

Now you're reading Amanda's mind.

 

[LondonJohn]

If anybody driving by sees a person on the front door of a house, the only thing they might think is - that a housemate is coming or leaving.
Completely normal.
Only exception if one knows the housemates are happy on holidays far away in Santo Domingo!

I agree. but suppose Mr A did drive by at that time and see Guede (for the sake of this argument) while he exited the house by the front door. Mr A would probably - as you rightly say - think nothing whatsoever of it at the time.

But say the police then issued a public appeal for any witnesses who might have seen anyone entering or leaving the house between two given times that evening. Mr A might easily remember that he had indeed seen a person coming out of the front door of the murder house that evening. He might go to the police. The police might ask Mr A to describe the person. Mr A might say with certainty that it was an adult male of black African origin. Mr A might even be able to remember the person well enough to identify Guede in a line-up.

And this is precisely why it would make sense for Guede (or anyone else for that matter) to linger outside by the front door for as little time as possible. It would have minimised the time during which they could have been spotted (and later identified) by any "Mr A"s coming round the corner in their cars.

I don't really know how (or if) I can make this point any more clearly, to be frank...

 

[quadraginta]

The killer had to get out of the house somehow. And any way in which the killer left the house was open to being spotted by passers-by. With that in mind, is it really rational to suggest that leaving by the front door would NOT be a) less suspicious and b) less time-consuming than climbing out of a broken window, suspending oneself by one's fingertips from the window ledge, and dropping to the ground?

What you're talking about is something different altogether, I'm afraid. Again, we're back to conditional probability. The issue here is this: given that the front door was a quicker and less-suspicious way to leave the house than via the window (for the reasons given above and elsewhere), what would be the best way of minimising risk when exiting from the more favourable option of the front door?

And the best way to minimise this risk would be to close the door behind you and get away from the house as quickly as possible. Why? Well, because of this: although, as you say, any bystander obviously wouldn't find it unusual to see someone closing a front door and locking it behind them, the extra time needed to lock the door would increase the risk of being seen at all next to the door. Better to be away and gone in seconds, rather than hang around longer than necessary, be spotted while locking the door, then subsequently identified. After all, I suspect it wouldn't be hard for a bystander witness to identify a wiry man of black African appearance, and it wouldn't take the police long to figure out that he had no business letting himself out of the girls' house.

So after having carefully locked Meredith's bedroom door for the express purpose of delaying discovery by the apartment residents, Guede suddenly decides that the extra several seconds required to lock a door he has just unlocked with the key he is still holding in his hand is too risky, and abandons any idea of concealing what had happened for any length of time.

Sorry. I ain't buyin' it. This is another one of these spins that tries to claw its way into the possible without ever getting anywhere close to the probable.

 

[LondonJohn]

So after having carefully locked Meredith's bedroom door for the express purpose of delaying discovery by the apartment residents, Guede suddenly decides that the extra several seconds required to lock a door he has just unlocked with the key he is still holding in his hand is too risky, and abandons any idea of concealing what had happened for any length of time.

Sorry. I ain't buyin' it. This is another one of these spins that tries to claw its way into the possible without ever getting anywhere close to the probable.

It's not about the total speed of exit. It's about speed of exit when at risk of identification.

When Meredith's bedroom door was locked, nobody from outside could see into the house to see this happening. Whoever locked the bedroom door could have spent 30 seconds locking it if they'd wanted to - the risk would have been essentially the same as if it took 0.5 seconds.

However, when the culprit was standing outside the house, next to the front door, time minimisation was most certainly critical. Do you think (to take things to the same extreme) that it was of roughly equal risk for the culprit to spend 30 seconds or 0.5 seconds standing outside next to the front door? Would you like it explained again?

 

[Bob001]

Another question here: Which would present a greater chance of concealment from passersby, leaving by the door or the window? If the door had a light outside, but the window faced a dark street, that might be an incentive to leave by the window. If the street had a street light overhead, and the door was in shadows, that might be the way to go. Anybody know about lighting?

 

[LondonJohn]

Another question here: Which would present a greater chance of concealment from passersby, leaving by the door or the window? If the door had a light outside, but the window faced a dark street, that might be an incentive to leave by the window. If the street had a street light overhead, and the door was in shadows, that might be the way to go. Anybody know about lighting?

Both the door and the window faced the same direction. Both were very visible from the main road (Viale Sant'Antonio) which passes next to the house. There is a deciduous tree between the door/window and the view from the road (for traffic travelling in an Easterly direction), which would not have provided a significant sight impediment in early November. The door is partially shadowed by the overhanging portion of the roof which forms a sort of porch. The window is flush with the side wall, and is exposed to street lights on Viale Sant'Antonio and the lights on the car park opposite.

 

[Mrs.Columbo]

Both the door and the window faced the same direction. Both were very visible from the main road (Viale Sant'Antonio) which passes next to the house. There is a deciduous tree between the door/window and the view from the road (for traffic travelling in an Easterly direction), which would not have provided a significant sight impediment in early November. The door is partially shadowed by the overhanging portion of the roof which forms a sort of porch. The window is flush with the side wall, and is exposed to street lights on Viale Sant'Antonio and the lights on the car park opposite.

But he must not stay outside, beeing unnecessaryly long disposed while fiddling with the key (which he is unused to), the door opens inside, he can insert the key while inside in the shadow - look, if anyone driving by, and then, when the 'coast is clear' - one step outside, one quick turn with the key and off he goes!

 

[odeed]

Shamelessly stealing Fiona's response from PMF:

I just posted this as a separate post, then noticed you referred to the article Fiona posted as well:

Fiona posted a link to an article which is interesting in that it suggests there can be false negatives for the TMB test. But the problem with that claim in relation to the footprints is that the tests which were 'false negatives' were those where the tiles had been washed in bleach. The footprints can't have been washed in bleach, because they wouldn't be visible at all: there would be a "faint luminescence", as in the surfaces they tested in that paper, but no visible marks - certainly not as clear as the footprints are. They can't even have been washed in soap and water, since on the non-porous tile surface that would have washed them away completely. That's why Massei has to conclude they were invisible footprints that were left after the person had washed their feet.

According to that paper, the TMB test was positive for blood on an unwashed tile surface, washed with water, and washed with soap and water; the only surface on which it didn't test positive is where the tile was washed with bleach, which, as I said, is impossible in relation to the footprints.

I'm interested to know whether what Massei suggests is possible - could a diluted mixture of blood and water have produced such a strong luminol reaction? And given the strength of that reaction, is it possible it could then test negative with the TMB test?

The paper quoted does not state if the blood stains tested were diluted (they were probably not), and also the testing was done after blood was applied to surfaces and cleaned, which I think is what not happened in this case.

Luminol sensitivity is 1:1,000,000 to 1:10,000,000 blood dilution, while tetramethylbenzidine (TMB) is up to 1:1,000,000 (in lab tets), but substances apart from bleach can cause false negatives for TMB tests (http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/july1999/ponce.htm and http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/july1999/poncet2.htm) for high dilutions.

If I remember the footprint in question was thought to have been made by Knox walking back to Kercher's room after washing her feet in the bathroom, probably with some cleaning product and water, and the footprint was missed in cleaning up afterwards because it was so faint it was not visible.

 

[Malkmus]

So after having carefully locked Meredith's bedroom door for the express purpose of delaying discovery by the apartment residents, Guede suddenly decides that the extra several seconds required to lock a door he has just unlocked with the key he is still holding in his hand is too risky, and abandons any idea of concealing what had happened for any length of time.

Sorry. I ain't buyin' it. This is another one of these spins that tries to claw its way into the possible without ever getting anywhere close to the probable.

Locking the door to Meredith's bedroom was imperative in delaying her discovery, considering no one would have been able to get in without breaking the door. What would have been the point of locking the front door? Any of the other residents would have been able to just use their keys to get in. Locking the front door would not have helped him in any way. So he didn't realize the front door would open by itself, something only the residents were aware of anyway. What's the big deal here?

 

[quadraginta]

Both the door and the window faced the same direction. Both were very visible from the main road (Viale Sant'Antonio) which passes next to the house. There is a deciduous tree between the door/window and the view from the road (for traffic travelling in an Easterly direction), which would not have provided a significant sight impediment in early November. The door is partially shadowed by the overhanging portion of the roof which forms a sort of porch. The window is flush with the side wall, and is exposed to street lights on Viale Sant'Antonio and the lights on the car park opposite.

I am looking at this photo of the front entry door. I am visualizing it as it would be at night, with the lights of oncoming traffic five feet above and on the opposite side of the adjacent road.

Note that in broad daylight and with a choice vantage point it is quite impossible to even detect the skin color of the officer standing and facing the entry door. Identifying features is quite out of the question. You are suggesting that the exposure Guede would be subject to at night would be sufficient for him to fear spending the several seconds it would take to lock the door, but instead felt so exposed that he abandoned his careful attempt to delay discovery.

That is utterly ridiculous. A figure in that alcove at night would be all but invisible, much less identifiable. Passing traffic would see nothing at all.

Your description above attempts to insinuate that the entry door alcove is some spotlighted center of attention. In actuality it is probably the safest place for concealment that could still provide access to the street. Not only could Guede have spent a few seconds there in perfect safety while locking the door, he could probably have curled up and taken a nap without any real danger of being seen.

 

[lane99]

...Correct, the lack of valuables taken from Filomena's room while it was ransacked sealed the deal for me.
...

It's a conclusion that suggests your opinions are not based on any particular insight into, or experience with, criminal matters.

Under the circumstances, there is nothing peculiar about a burglar not taking more valuables than are thought to have be taken from the cottage.

The argument that one or another thing potentially of value being left at a apparent burglary suggests "staging" is, at best, inept.

 

[odeed]

It's not about the total speed of exit. It's about speed of exit when at risk of identification.

When Meredith's bedroom door was locked, nobody from outside could see into the house to see this happening. Whoever locked the bedroom door could have spent 30 seconds locking it if they'd wanted to - the risk would have been essentially the same as if it took 0.5 seconds.

However, when the culprit was standing outside the house, next to the front door, time minimisation was most certainly critical. Do you think (to take things to the same extreme) that it was of roughly equal risk for the culprit to spend 30 seconds or 0.5 seconds standing outside next to the front door? Would you like it explained again?

I have seen some arguing in this thread or the other, that the window was a logical entry point for a burglar in that it was not easily visible from the road, compared to the door and patio on the other side.

 

[Malkmus]

I am looking at this photo of the front entry door. I am visualizing it as it would be at night, with the lights of oncoming traffic five feet above and on the opposite side of the adjacent road.

Note that in broad daylight and with a choice vantage point it is quite impossible to even detect the skin color of the officer standing and facing the entry door. Identifying features is quite out of the question. You are suggesting that the exposure Guede would be subject to at night would be sufficient for him to fear spending the several seconds it would take to lock the door, but instead felt so exposed that he abandoned his careful attempt to delay discovery.

That is utterly ridiculous. A figure in that alcove at night would be all but invisible, much less identifiable. Passing traffic would see nothing at all.

Your description above attempts to insinuate that the entry door alcove is some spotlighted center of attention. In actuality it is probably the safest place for concealment that could still provide access to the street. Not only could Guede have spent a few seconds there in perfect safety while locking the door, he could probably have curled up and taken a nap without any real danger of being seen.

What's ridiculous is assuming that a thief and murderer would bother locking the door behind him at a residence he had just broken in to. What would have compelled him to do so? Common courtesy? To make sure no other criminals entered after him?

 

[lane99]

Speaking of lack of experience, not personally familiar with Italian law.

Someone commented on the "Injustice in Perugia" blog that Knox was not free to stop her interrogations, had she wanted to do so.

In other words, she didn't have the right to remain silent.

Is this correct? Is this civil right not available to people in Italy?

 

[quadraginta]

Locking the door to Meredith's bedroom was imperative in delaying her discovery, considering no one would have been able to get in without breaking the door. What would have been the point of locking the front door? Any of the other residents would have been able to just use their keys to get in. Locking the front door would not have helped him in any way. So he didn't realize the front door would open by itself, something only the residents were aware of anyway. What's the big deal here?

Locking the door would have prevented the other tenants on their return from being curious that the door had been left unlocked, as Amanda claimed to be. This would have reinforced the idea of discouraging entry into Meredith's room, allegedly the rational behind locking her bedroom door in the first place.

I was willing to consider the possibility that someone unlocking and exiting the entry door might not have noticed that the spring latch was was faulty, but I am much more doubtful that they would have done so with the spring latch intentionally jammed open. More than doubtful, in fact.

Even so I don't believe that someone who so carefully thought out and executed a plan to delay discovery by locking that bedroom door would so easily abandon it because of the imagined danger of several extra seconds in a dim and obscured entry alcove. Whether or not the issues with the spring latch were noticed is irrelevant to that.

 

[quadraginta]

What's ridiculous is assuming that a thief and murderer would bother locking the door behind him at a residence he had just broken in to. What would have compelled him to do so? Common courtesy? To make sure no other criminals entered after him?

Okay. So why did he lock the door to Meredith's room? Was that to protect her corpse from those other criminals?

 

[Malkmus]

Locking the door would have prevented the other tenants on their return from being curious that the door had been left unlocked, as Amanda claimed to be. This would have reinforced the idea of discouraging entry into Meredith's room, allegedly the rational behind locking her bedroom door in the first place.

I was willing to consider the possibility that someone unlocking and exiting the entry door might not have noticed that the spring latch was was faulty, but I am much more doubtful that they would have done so with the spring latch intentionally jammed open. More than doubtful, in fact.

Even so I don't believe that someone who so carefully thought out and executed a plan to delay discovery by locking that bedroom door would so easily abandon it because of the imagined danger of several extra seconds in a dim and obscured entry alcove. Whether or not the issues with the spring latch were noticed is irrelevant to that.

Rudy must have assumed, as anyone not living there would, that the door would have remained shut behind him. If it had, do you think anyone would have been alarmed at entering a cottage where four girls lived and finding the door shut, but not locked? Personally, I don't think so.