Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Malkmus]

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

It's rather obvious. Locking the door to Meredith's room prevented anyone from anyone discovering her body by simply opening her door. Any of the other residents, on the other hand, could gain entry to the cottage via the front door. Hence, locking the front door would not gain him anything. Whether it was an effective tactic in the long-run shouldn't matter, I might add. But the intention is obviously apparent.

 

[quadraginta]

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.

Knox seemed to think so. She made a particular point of stressing how unusual it was to find the door unlocked with nobody home, because of the issues with the latch.

I wouldn't presume to offer her opinion against your expertise, except that we've been assured that everything she says is only marginally shy of gospel truth, and when it comes up short it's because we have misunderstood her.

 

[Malkmus]

Knox seemed to think so. She made a particular point of stressing how unusual it was to find the door unlocked with nobody home, because of the issues with the latch.

I wouldn't presume to offer her opinion against your expertise, except that we've been assured that everything she says is only marginally shy of gospel truth, and when it comes up short it's because we have misunderstood her.

I'm not sure what your point here is. Yes, Amanda found the open door to be strange because everyone who lived there knew to lock it to prevent it from opening. If you came home and found your front door open, you'd probably find it strange. I've left my front door unlocked before by mistake, as some of you may have as well. It's a common mistake. What I think you're overlooking is that an unlocked door is not that unusual, but an open door is. And since Rudy was unaware of the faulty mechanism, leaving the door shut meant the door would be shut until someone else came home. At that point, to him, locking the front door would only have been an act of courtesy and a waste of valuable time.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

No, I think the window was pretty visible from the main road (for people/cars travelling in an Easterly direction). As was the front door - although the door had the benefit of some cover from the sloping roof which formed a porch.

And it's fair to say that most of the windows in the girls' apartment were visible from the main road - from one direction or the other. Ironically, the only one which wasn't really visible from the road (I think) was Meredith's - but I believe it had a metal grill over it (possibly for that reason).

I've previously theorised that the exterior shutters on Filomena's window may have been open prior to any break-in (if indeed there was a break-in) and that any person breaking in might then - logically - have closed the exterior shutters to mask the broken window, once he was inside Filomena's room. I have a feeling that, if so, this is why Filomena's window was selected; perhaps all the other top-floor windows had their shutters firmly shut that evening - is there any evidence to show whether or not this is the case.

And one other thing that's intrigued me in this area is why an assailant would go for an upper-floor window, rather than a window in the lower (boys') apartment (which was far less exposed to the street). However, this question is answered if all the lower floor windows had the same type of metal grate that was on the window below Filomena's. Does anyone know if this is the case?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

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.

Quadraginta, this whole subtopic of yours is an extended foray into the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. We don't know why Rudy (or whoever) did one thing rather than another, and it's ridiculous to conclude that every minute detail of the case you consider "odd" with the benefit of confirmation bias is in fact evidence that the prosecution three-way conspiracy theory is factual.

All that is necessary for the defence case is that it be possible for Rudy to have thought it a better idea at the time to leave by the front door rather than the window. That could be because he had an injured hand, because he thought he heard a passer-by, because he was lazy, because he was tired, it could be anything and exactly what it was doesn't matter (and isn't our job to prove).

For people who have been so nonchalant about suggesting Olympic class gymnastics to get Guede up through the window without leaving any traces of his passage, you all are sure getting mighty timid about him climbing back out again. Remember, the biggest issue with the entry is that there was no external trace of it.The considerable athletic ability required to have done that and done it inadvertently would make leaving by the same route a piece of cake.

Has anyone argued it would have been physically impossible for Rudy to have gotten back out that window if he really wanted to? (Ignoring for a minute the question of whether he could have done so without leaving any evidence). I didn't see that, so I think you're engaging in straw man tactics here.

Once again, all the defence needs to establish is that it's possible that leaving by the front door seemed like a better idea to Rudy at the time.

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.

Sorry. I ain't buyin' it. This is another one of those talking points where PMFers wildly exaggerate the improbability of a given oddity, on no good grounds at all.

As I've said before, the more details you examine the more "oddities" you will find, especially with confirmation bias sitting on your shoulder. We've already shown how you can find exactly the same kind of "oddities" in the testimony of Filomena and the police. Stacking up a huge pile of such oddities is not amassing evidence, it's amassing meaningless curiousities. Whether Rudy did it or not, you could assemble an equally large pile of such irrelevant points.

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.

Here's you're making things up again.

Nobody ever asserted Rudy "so carefully thought out and executed a plan", that's purely your own rhetorical invention, to try to exaggerate the improbability of his not locking the door.

All the defence needs is that it be possible that it seemed like a better idea to Rudy at the time to leave by the front door, and that it's possible that it seemed like a better idea at the time not to take the time to lock the door properly, or that he thought the door had locked behind him, or that he tried to lock it but had some problem finding the right key or whatever and decided to just walk away, or something else.

That's it. That's all the defence needs.

 

[LondonJohn]

Quadraginta, this whole subtopic of yours is an extended foray into the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. We don't know why Rudy (or whoever) did one thing rather than another, and it's ridiculous to conclude that every minute detail of the case you consider "odd" with the benefit of confirmation bias is in fact evidence that the prosecution three-way conspiracy theory is factual.

All that is necessary for the defence case is that it be possible for Rudy to have thought it a better idea at the time to leave by the front door rather than the window. That could be because he had an injured hand, because he thought he heard a passer-by, because he was lazy, because he was tired, it could be anything and exactly what it was doesn't matter (and isn't our job to prove).



Has anyone argued it would have been physically impossible for Rudy to have gotten back out that window if he really wanted to? (Ignoring for a minute the question of whether he could have done so without leaving any evidence). I didn't see that, so I think you're engaging in straw man tactics here.

Once again, all the defence needs to establish is that it's possible that leaving by the front door seemed like a better idea to Rudy at the time.



Sorry. I ain't buyin' it. This is another one of those talking points where PMFers wildly exaggerate the improbability of a given oddity, on no good grounds at all.

As I've said before, the more details you examine the more "oddities" you will find, especially with confirmation bias sitting on your shoulder. We've already shown how you can find exactly the same kind of "oddities" in the testimony of Filomena and the police. Stacking up a huge pile of such oddities is not amassing evidence, it's amassing meaningless curiousities. Whether Rudy did it or not, you could assemble an equally large pile of such irrelevant points.



Here's you're making things up again.

Nobody ever asserted Rudy "so carefully thought out and executed a plan", that's purely your own rhetorical invention, to try to exaggerate the improbability of his not locking the door.

All the defence needs is that it be possible that it seemed like a better idea to Rudy at the time to leave by the front door, and that it's possible that it seemed like a better idea at the time not to take the time to lock the door properly, or that he thought the door had locked behind him, or that he tried to lock it but had some problem finding the right key or whatever and decided to just walk away, or something else.

That's it. That's all the defence needs.

I'm not altogether sure that the difference in the burdens placed upon the prosecution and the defence is particularly well-understood in some quarters. The prosecution has the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The defence has to demonstrate the possibility of reasonable alternatives which contradict (or sometimes even just challenge) the prosecution's interpretation of the evidence.

Regarding one of tonight's "hot topics", it seems to me that it's only incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the evidence is consistent with a staged break-in, in order to support their entire thesis. Even if the evidence is found to be consistent with either an actual or staged break-in, things are still OK for the prosecution case. The only time the prosecution could be in trouble over this is if the defence could ever show that the evidence is only consistent with a real break-in - which I feel is very unlikely.

However.....from a defence perspective, any demonstration that the evidence was consistent with both a real and staged break-in might be useful in the formulation of an alternative scenario. Such alternative scenarios are not usually strictly necessary for a defence to mount a challenge to the prosecution case. However, if the defence CAN find a convincing narrative which also explains the key evidence - while showing no indication of the defendants' culpability - this can be a powerful tool.

 

[Fine]

So we've come full circle now. If there was no staging and if our LONE WOLF intruder, Rudy, came as a burglar or a rapist, ...why didn't he just kick in the damn front door to begin with? You think throwing the 10 pound rock through the window was silent? Nope. Climbing the wall easier? Nope. Faster? Nope. Safer? Nope. Or was he scared of that porch light? How many Lone Wolves does it take to unscrew a light bulb?

///

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

So we've come full circle now. If there was no staging and if our LONE WOLF intruder, Rudy, came as a burglar or a rapist, ...why didn't he just kick in the damn front door to begin with? You think throwing the 10 pound rock through the window was silent? Nope. Climbing the wall easier? Nope. Faster? Nope. Safer? Nope. Or was he scared of that porch light? How many Lone Wolves does it take to unscrew a light bulb?

I think you've fallen into the confirmation bias trap pretty badly here, you're just randomly mocking any aspect of the proposed defence narrative that catches your eye without doing any actual thinking as to whether your ridicule makes sense.

Breaking a glass window is much easier than breaking a wooden door, and usually (depending on the local geometry) breaking into a house by the side or the back is safer than breaking in by the front because you are less likely to be seen. If you get to the stage where you're seriously arguing that Rudy could only have entered either by kicking the front door down or by being let in as part of a three-way Satanic rape plot, you need to take a few big steps back and a few deep breaths.

 

[Malkmus]

It's also pretty clear from that picture that the bottom window is situated below the right side of Meredith's window. That is the side where the glass was on the sill. Care to explain how someone is going to hold that sill without disturbing the glass pieces that were there? How someone is going to lean a little to the left (in order to use the part of the sill that is free of glass), boost themselves up without encountering that nail in the wall?

Amazer, I certainly can see where you're coming from with this, and initially when I looked at the photos, it seemed like there would be no place for Rudy to have placed at least one of his hands on the sill without cutting himself. But I think a closer look at the window reveals that it was quite possible. As for the nail, I don't really see how that would have been an obstruction at all, for the simple reason that Rudy wouldn't have needed to press his body flat against the wall to climb into the window.

So as far as the glass on the window sill goes:

I looked at the photo on Bruce's site of the window and enlarged it. This reveals a couple things. The glass on the sill covers approximately half of it. And the half of the sill that does have glass on it is only on the innermost side of the sill, leaving enough room from the outside to at least grab the outer edge of the sill with one hand and not touch any glass. But even if that weren't enough to grasp onto, there's also the shutter itself to consider, and I think it's probably more likely that it would have been used to help get Rudy inside. With this line of thinking I think it would have been possible that Rudy stood on the top bar of the lower window, putting him at about chest level with Filomena's window. With his left hand he could grasp the side of the sill with no glass, possibly even hooking his entire forearm around to the wall inside the bedroom to anchor himself. Then, with his right hand he could reach up and grab the inside of the shutter which has wooden blinds turned upward. Using the blinds of the shutter he could lift himself up. That's one theory anyway.

 

[HumanityBlues]

OT but has to be said.

Kevin_Lowe: Never change your avatar under any circumstance.

 

[Malkmus]

So we've come full circle now. If there was no staging and if our LONE WOLF intruder, Rudy, came as a burglar or a rapist, ...why didn't he just kick in the damn front door to begin with? You think throwing the 10 pound rock through the window was silent? Nope. Climbing the wall easier? Nope. Faster? Nope. Safer? Nope. Or was he scared of that porch light? How many Lone Wolves does it take to unscrew a light bulb?

///

This one is pretty silly. We already have good reason to believe Rudy had climbed in through a window in the past instead of breaking down the front door, not to mention kicking down someone's front door to rob them is a pretty outlandish idea anyway (for obvious reasons not worth mentioning - although I won't be surprised if I'm asked to explain anyway).

 

[GrouchoMarxist]

OT but has to be said.

Kevin_Lowe: Never change your avatar under any circumstance.

Because your hair is lustrous.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

This one is pretty silly. We already have good reason to believe Rudy had climbed in through a window in the past instead of breaking down the front door, not to mention kicking down someone's front door to rob them is a pretty outlandish idea anyway (for obvious reasons not worth mentioning - although I won't be surprised if I'm asked to explain anyway).

We have good reason to believe Knox was at least familiar with the art of rock throwing

 

[LondonJohn]

So we've come full circle now. If there was no staging and if our LONE WOLF intruder, Rudy, came as a burglar or a rapist, ...why didn't he just kick in the damn front door to begin with? You think throwing the 10 pound rock through the window was silent? Nope. Climbing the wall easier? Nope. Faster? Nope. Safer? Nope. Or was he scared of that porch light? How many Lone Wolves does it take to unscrew a light bulb?

///

Why do you believe that any wolves were involved in the crime? And if any wolves were involved, I think that their lack of opposable thumbs would render them incapable of unscrewing lightbulbs.

///

 

[LondonJohn]

We have good reason to believe Knox was at least familiar with the art of rock throwing

Do we? Where from?

 

[Fine]

This one is pretty silly. We already have good reason to believe Rudy had climbed in through a window in the past instead of breaking down the front door, not to mention kicking down someone's front door to rob them is a pretty outlandish idea anyway (for obvious reasons not worth mentioning - although I won't be surprised if I'm asked to explain anyway).

______________

Nothing outlandish at all. Kicking in the front door of a residence is a common form of breaking-and-entering. What, do you think it would be difficult? It's not difficult at all. When it's not done, it's not done because there is an easier/faster/safer means. But in all those ways, the "Filomena's Window" method is worse. Much worse.

(EDIT TO ADD: Oops, Have I committed the Texas Chainsaw Fallacy again?)

///

 

[LondonJohn]

______________

Nothing outlandish at all. Kicking in the front door of a residence is a common form of breaking-and-entering. What, do you think it would be difficult? It's not difficult at all. When it's not done, it's not done because there is an easier/faster/safer means. But in all those ways, the "Filomena's Window" method is worse. Much worse.

///

Anyone who thinks that it's easy to kick in a modern design of exterior door, with tempered hinges and cylinder locks, and steel reinforcement plates, has probably never tried to kick in a modern design of exterior door. And the front door of the murder house appeared to be very modern (at least post-1980) in design and construction.

///

 

[Malkmus]

Anyone who thinks that it's easy to kick in a modern design of exterior door, with tempered hinges and cylinder locks, and steel reinforcement plates, has probably never tried to kick in a modern design of exterior door. And the front door of the murder house appeared to be very modern (at least post-1980) in design and construction.

///

And in general, front doors are constructed much more durably than bedroom/bathroom doors for the exact purpose of not being able to be kicked down by intruders. This wouldn't have been like kicking in Meredith's door. There's a reason you see multiple officers using a battering ram on COPS when they need to break a door down. I'd like to see an actual statistic proving that burglars often kick in the front door of a residence to gain entry. Just picturing the act is ludicrous, considering the amount of strength, time, and stupidity it would take to be successful.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Anyone who thinks that it's easy to kick in a modern design of exterior door, with tempered hinges and cylinder locks, and steel reinforcement plates, has probably never tried to kick in a modern design of exterior door. And the front door of the murder house appeared to be very modern (at least post-1980) in design and construction.

///

My guess is Fine learned about kicking in front doors from TV and movies, where people can just pop them open with a single kick at will.

In real life police use battering rams for a reason.

 

[Moss]

A door that opens from itself right after you leave the house is not going to arouse suspicion in any way. Especially when it's a black guy leaving. It will certainly be less conspicuous than the same black guy locking it. Ahem...
The really problematic part isn't locking/leaving the door but rather the way away from the house where meeting someone might pose a danger to the perpetrator leaving the scene. The whole act with the door is negligible. Especially as the door is set in a way that provides cover enough.
And then is the funny bit about the perp being cunning with locking the door to Meredith's room to get himself more time. If he is that methodical and clever in that situation, wouldn't he want to lock the front door too? Because having it swing around open is sure to arouse suspicion. As is the break-in (staged or otherwise) or leaving it unlocked (and therefore not providing the illusion that nobody is at home).
Which also rubs me wrong when it comes to taking the phones with him. If the perp is calculating enough to think about the phones ringing shattering that illusion, why is he then so stupid as to leave a big signpost with the open/unlocked front door?
Looks like inconsistent MO to me. (Not that that doesn't happen, but it is strange that a perp would have enough cool in such a situation to think of details like the phones and then let one very obvious one hanging.)

I am still curious about the footprints: They do not seem to be blood from the tests. But how did DNA from both Meredith and Amanda end up in Filomena's room? (And what kind of material containing DNA was it?)