Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

I haven't been around today so I haven't read all the posts. Did anyone answer these questions, yet, LJ?

Surprisingly, no!

EDIT: Well, obviously there was (as one might expect) an "answer" which exclusively took the form of a straw man argument. But in terms of an actual proper answer which addressed the questions, then no.........

 

[katy_did]

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.

One quite interesting detail of Rudy's story is that, when he's protesting about how he definitely didn't break the window, of course not, he says that when he was there the shutters to Filomena's room were open and the glass was intact. Leaving aside the question as to how he knew that particular window was the one to be broken in the first place* (especially since the press initially reported it was Meredith's) it makes sense that he would describe the shutters as they were when he initially found them, rather than after he'd broken in and pulled them towards the window. After all, he'd be aware Filomena would be asked whether she'd left the shutters open (though not that her memory was vague through her having left in a rush that day) and he had plenty of time to come up with a story adding all these little details.

*Which is another question that hasn't been addressed, actually. How did Rudy know (in his Skype phone call) which window had been broken? He said then that it was the window to the left as you come up the driveway, that the shutters were open and the glass was intact. But apparently that information (as to which exact window it was) hadn't really been reported in the press, apart from the inaccurate information about it being Meredith's window and the door locked from inside etc.

 

[Mary_H]

Surprisingly, no!

EDIT: Well, obviously there was (as one might expect) an "answer" which exclusively took the form of a straw man argument. But in terms of an actual proper answer which addressed the questions, then no.........

My goodness, that IS a surprise!

 

[katy_did]

See my coincidentally similar (but very verbose!) post just after yours......

Ah well, some folk do appear to need these things spelled out in detail.

 

[katy_did]

Why? A resident would also have to take Meredith's keys in order to close her door. Or do all the residents have keys of the other rooms?

As I've said before, it's a question of Rudy's motives being stronger. The bedroom door being locked is not an obvious thing for the murderer to do, whoever did it. I was puzzled by it, before I realized a non-resident would need to take the keys to get out of the house anyway. Then it made sense.

No, it doesn't prove beyond doubt that Rudy took them. But on the balance of probability, it makes it more likely that he took them than that the other two did, because he had more reason to do so. It adds another detail to the overall narrative of the case which tips the scales just that bit further towards Rudy.

By the way, the man who broke into Cristiano Tramontano's apartment broke in through a downstairs window. When he was discovered, he tried to get out through the front door, and when he found it locked, he pulled out a knife. Wonder why he didn't just try and leave by the window?

 

[Fuji]

Please explain. Under what circumstances is it not peculiar that a burglar ransacks a room but fails to take anything of value?

When the burglary is interrupted by one of the residents and the resident is killed? Just a guess...

So the ransacked room that's not missing anything of value is to be understood as evidence that Rudy was interrupted while burgling the house? I thought the deuce he left in the bowl was the evidence for that. Was he interrupted twice?

And while we're discussing Rudy's bowel movement again, is it probable that someone who was so careless about leaving evdence of his presence at the scene would take the time to lock Meredith's door? I think not.

 

[katy_did]

Perhaps the reason rudy didn't climb down were the cuts on his fingers. Climbing down with these injuries would be somewhat more dangerous than exiting with the front door keys.

Good point. Especially since he may have injured his hands on the glass climbing up in the first place .

 

[Amazer]

When the burglary is interrupted by one of the residents and the resident is killed? Just a guess...

Aha... so the burglar ransacks the Filomena's room, making an inventory of things he wants to take. But for the time being he leaves everything in place? Presumably till he's got a complete list of the things that he wants to take.

Man, that Rudy is a smart cookie.

 

[katy_did]

I do find it peculiar. But it is arbitrary to link it to the murder. If she was tracking Meredith's blood around, why isn't there some evidence of that in Meredith's room, the source of the blood? Why did the footprints in the corridor reveal no trace of anyone's DNA? How did Amanda track Meredith's blood into Filomena's room without leaving a trail?

Charlie, what do you know about the shoe print that was found in the corridor? (the one revealed by luminol) Is it true that that tested positive for Amanda and Meredith's DNA as well?

If so, that would seem the obvious explanation for the DNA in Filomena's room - that the wearer of the shoes tracked it in there.

 

[katy_did]

So the ransacked room that's not missing anything of value is to be understood as evidence that Rudy was interrupted while burgling the house? I thought the deuce he left in the bowl was the evidence for that. Was he interrupted twice?

And while we're discussing Rudy's bowel movement again, is it probable that someone who was so careless about leaving evdence of his presence at the scene would take the time to lock Meredith's door? I think not.

Presumably the urgent need to go to the bathroom disrupted his ransacking of Filomena's room, and Meredith came home while he was in there (see LondonJohn's detailed scenario above).

And hey, wonder if murdering one of the residents might have made him forget he hadn't flushed?

These things really seem incredibly obvious...

 

[LondonJohn]

So the ransacked room that's not missing anything of value is to be understood as evidence that Rudy was interrupted while burgling the house? I thought the deuce he left in the bowl was the evidence for that. Was he interrupted twice?

And while we're discussing Rudy's bowel movement again, is it probable that someone who was so careless about leaving evdence of his presence at the scene would take the time to lock Meredith's door? I think not.

No. It's perfectly reasonable to suggest that an adrenaline response elicited by breaking in through a publicly-visible window (plus the fear of being immediately confronted upon entry) would result in an immediate urge to defecate.

So, from that, it's also perfectly reasonable to suggest that Guede might have broken-and-entered, then had to go straight to the bathroom to defecate - i.e. before he started looking for & collecting items of value.

And it's then perfectly reasonable to suggest that Meredith might have arrived home while Guede was in the bathroom. And that this is why there was ultimately no burglary. In this scenario, he was only interrupted once.

Oh, and I suspect that, in this scenario, Guede would either simply be too pre-occupied about the murder to remember about his faeces in the bowl, or that he simply didn't realise that one could be identified by one's stool...

 

[katy_did]

Aha... so the burglar ransacks the Filomena's room, making an inventory of things he wants to take. But for the time being he leaves everything in place? Presumably till he's got a complete list of the things that he wants to take.

Man, that Rudy is a smart cookie.

So, does the fact you've changed the argument mean you agree with Micheli that a burglar might not be all that keen to steal traceable goods from a house where he's just killed someone?

 

[LondonJohn]

Woah! We're not the same person, are we katy?!!!

 

[LondonJohn]

Aha... so the burglar ransacks the Filomena's room, making an inventory of things he wants to take. But for the time being he leaves everything in place? Presumably till he's got a complete list of the things that he wants to take.

Man, that Rudy is a smart cookie.

No, Rudy's not a biscuit of any sort. He's a human being, of black African ethnicity.

 

[katy_did]

Woah! We're not the same person, are we katy?!!!

You apparently have more patience when explaining these things.

 

[Amazer]

Here's a thought:

What if someone decided to commit a burglary of a house which a) he had visited previously (although had no strong ties to), and therefore had some knowledge of the layout and the occupants, b) he might reasonably suspect would contain various laptop computers and personal electronics devices (cameras, iPods etc)?

Ok, is he planning on first going through all the rooms, making an inventory of what he's going to take. Or does he pick things up as and when he comes across them?

So this someone broke in through the window, in order to commit the burglary, and immediately had a sudden strong urge to defecate*. But while the would-be burglar was in the large bathroom, Meredith returned home, locking the front door behind her (and placing the keys back in her handbag), going to the fridge for a mushroom, then going to her room.

Clearly his urge to go to the bathroom wasn't immediate since he did ransack the room of Filomena. Otherwise, i can go along with it.

The would-be burglar would have logically waited until Meredith had returned to her room before making his next move. Clearly, he couldn't now flush the toilet, since the noise would alert Meredith. His best bet, by far, would be to just slip quietly out of the front door.

Ok

So, the would-be burglar then went quietly to the front door, and tried to open it. However, it soon became apparent to him that the door was locked, and required a key to open it. He pulled on the door in frustration, making enough noise to alert Meredith.

Possible I suppose.

Meredith went to her bedroom door to see what the source of the noise was. The assailant ran over to confront her at her bedroom door. The assailant demanded the keys, and Meredith refused. There was a struggle. The assailant pulled a knife. And Killed Meredith. He was by then psycho-sexually aroused by the situation, and committed some form of sexual assault**.

Perhaps, any idea if Rudy has undergone any kind of evaluation which could confirm that a struggle/murder would arouse him?

So the person who is now a murderer was now in Meredith's room, in full knowledge of the fact that he needed a key to get out of the front door. He searched in Meredith's handbag, finding the keys. He also opportunistically decided to take her wallet (purse) and phones. He left some of his DNA on the handbag in the process of doing all this.

Ok

The murderer then made a swift exit from the scene. He was now in a highly-agitated state, and any thoughts of a comprehensive burglary had completely exited his mind. He could see that there was a lock on Meredith's door, and that there were only a few keys on Meredith's key ring. So he spontaneously decided that he would try to delay discovery of the body by locking Meredith's door on his way out. He selected the correct key by trying it on the inside face of the door, then exited and locked the bedroom door behind himself.

Ok

The murderer then proceeded straight to the front door. He unlocked the door, and let himself out. Realising that he was now once more in full public view, he panicked somewhat, pulled the door shut and ran as fast as he could away from the house.

How did that blood get in the bathroom again?

Is this a reasonable proposition? Comments appreciated!

You're still overlooking a few things... but on the whole quite reasonable.

* And bowel movements are physiologically linked to fear, and I suspect that someone who had just climbed through a visible window would have experienced feelings of fear (of being spotted, or of being confronted as soon as he was inside the house).

Right... any idea if Rudy had sudden bowel movement in the other places where he did a B&E?

** A documented phenomenon.

 

[LondonJohn]

You apparently have more patience when explaining these things.

Or verbosity...

On that subject, I don't hear many verbosity-related complaints in relation to the 400-page Massei report (which, in addition, appears to have been written in arcane, archaic and inaccessible language). I wonder why not?

 

[Amazer]

So, does the fact you've changed the argument mean you agree with Micheli that a burglar might not be all that keen to steal traceable goods from a house where he's just killed someone?

I can definitely understand that Rudy wouldn't have been too keen to take traceable goods, especially when he just killed someone.

What I still don't understand is that Filomena's room was ransacked but no effort was taken to even pick up any of the valuables that he did come across.

 

[Amazer]

No, Rudy's not a biscuit of any sort. He's a human being, of black African ethnicity.

I you can believe that Amanda is an innocent angel, then I'm certainly allowed to believe that Rudy is a biscuit!

 

[LondonJohn]

In fairness, I forgot the stage where the murderer would have gone to the bathroom to wash the visible blood off himself, and possibly also to collect towels to try (badly) to destroy evidence of his presence in the murder room. And it would be during this return to the murder room with the towels that he would have trodden in the blood which formed the footprint trace to the front door.