• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
LondonJohn said:
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**.
Click to expand...

Wrong, in your scenario this would have happened in the range of let`s say 9:00-9:30, whereas Meredith`s harrowing scream was heard at about 11:30 by a witness.
 
Amazer said:
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?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what this means at all. I'm suggesting that the would-be burglar entered Filomena's room, perhaps started to move clothing around, but then succumbed to an urge to defecate. He then temporarily (or so he though) abandoned the burglary in order to visit the bathroom.

Amazer said:
Right... any idea if Rudy had sudden bowel movement in the other places where he did a B&E?
Click to expand...

No I don't. Do the prosecution have any idea that he didn't? And, anyhow, I thought that Guede had no prior "official" history of breaking and entering. Isn't that what certain posters keep repeating?
 
LiamG. said:
Wrong, in your scenario this would have happened in the range of let`s say 9:00-9:30, whereas Meredith`s harrowing scream was heard at about 11:30 by a witness.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, the very reliable 11.30pm scream. That blows the whole theory apart. Oh, no, wait........
 
And if only the police had been competent enough to establish a proper time of death via temperature readings on the corpse in situ, coupled with an accurate knowledge of ambient temperatures in Meredith's room....

And if only the coroner hadn't reported from an analysis of Meredith's stomach contents that she was killed within around three hours of her last main meal. And if only Meredith's friends hadn't reported that her last meal, of Pizza, was taken at round 6pm.....
 
LondonJohn said:
I'm not sure what this means at all. I'm suggesting that the would-be burglar entered Filomena's room, perhaps started to move clothing around, but then succumbed to an urge to defecate. He then temporarily (or so he though) abandoned the burglary in order to visit the bathroom.
Click to expand...
I guess we just don't have enough data to reach a conclusion either way.


No I don't. Do the prosecution have any idea that he didn't? And, anyhow, I thought that Guede had no prior "official" history of breaking and entering. Isn't that what certain posters keep repeating?
Click to expand...
They sure do. And of course officially he doesn't have a record of B&E.
 
Matthew Best said:
To whom to you attribute this belief and on what evidence? Has anyone actually described Knox as "an angel" here? It seems you are demolishing yet another straw man.
Click to expand...

Matthew, light hearted response.
Light hearted response, Matthew.

Glad that the two of you could finally meet.
 
LondonJohn said:
Ah yes, the very reliable 11.30pm scream. That blows the whole theory apart. Oh, no, wait........
Click to expand...

I see, along with Curatolo and Quintavalle , another "rubbish" witness. The court didn`t only get it wrong with one witness, it got it wrong with even three witnesses.
I think the whole 400+ pages Massei report should be replaced by your 25 lines long theory of the crime.
 
katy_did said:
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).
Click to expand...

That doesn't make sense to me. Then again, Rudy taking the time to use the bathroom in the first place, assuming this was indeed a burglary-turned-murder, makes no sense either.

I do not believe that burglars, as a matter of course, spend any longer inside a residence than is absolutely necessary. I can only see a burglar leaving a bowel movement behind in one circumstance: they have good reason to expect that they are very unlikely to be disturbed while committing the burglary (e.g. your typical vacationer who arrives home to a burgled house).

After he purportedly climbed in Filomena's window, Rudy both left his feces behind and ransacked her room. I find it highly implausible that, within moments of breaking in, having trashed the room looking for valuables, he interrupts his search to take an urgent bowel movement. If his stomach was distressed immediately after entering the room, then he would have either: 1) gone to use the bathroom before commencing the search (if he figured that no one would be there the rest of the evening), or 2) sucked up his discomfort and searched for valuables as quickly as possible, then fled at high speed for the nearest toilet or poorly-lit shrub (if he figured that he might be disturbed at any moment by someone arriving home).

Moreover, using the bathroom first would place him in Filomena's room when Meredith arrived home. In that case, the most obvious point of egress is back out the window he just came in - NOT the front door, whose use entails a much greater probablity of discovery by Meredith. Furthermore, if he used the bathroom before trashing Filomena's room, then there is no reason for him not to flush the toilet afterwards.

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

Perhaps. But if he was in that agitated of a state of mind, then I'm left wondering why he took the trouble of locking Meredith's door if a rapid exit was the only thing on his mind.

These things really seem incredibly obvious...
Click to expand...

Not to me they don't.
 
I see that another forum has finally established something that a 2-second analysis of the front door photos made utterly obvious (and which was posted in this thread quite some time ago):

a) The front door's lever-handle-operated catch was deliberately disabled (by wedging the catch open), since otherwise it would be impossible to open the door from the outside without assistance from the inside. This is because there was a lever handle on the inside face of the door, but (inexplicably) not on the outside face.

b) The door therefore needed to be locked by a key in the lower cylinder lock in order to keep it shut. Furthermore, once the door was locked in this way, a key was needed to unlock & open it from either the inside or the outside.

And, as Stilicho presciently said himself: "I think we can all see some problems in the prosecution scenario if the front door needs to be unlocked with a key from the inside"
 
Fuji said:
That doesn't make sense to me. Then again, Rudy taking the time to use the bathroom in the first place, assuming this was indeed a burglary-turned-murder, makes no sense either.

I do not believe that burglars, as a matter of course, spend any longer inside a residence than is absolutely necessary. I can only see a burglar leaving a bowel movement behind in one circumstance: they have good reason to expect that they are very unlikely to be disturbed while committing the burglary (e.g. your typical vacationer who arrives home to a burgled house).

After he purportedly climbed in Filomena's window, Rudy both left his feces behind and ransacked her room. I find it highly implausible that, within moments of breaking in, having trashed the room looking for valuables, he interrupts his search to take an urgent bowel movement. If his stomach was distressed immediately after entering the room, then he would have either: 1) gone to use the bathroom before commencing the search (if he figured that no one would be there the rest of the evening), or 2) sucked up his discomfort and searched for valuables as quickly as possible, then fled at high speed for the nearest toilet or poorly-lit shrub (if he figured that he might be disturbed at any moment by someone arriving home).

Moreover, using the bathroom first would place him in Filomena's room when Meredith arrived home. In that case, the most obvious point of egress is back out the window he just came in - NOT the front door, whose use entails a much greater probablity of discovery by Meredith. Furthermore, if he used the bathroom before trashing Filomena's room, then there is no reason for him not to flush the toilet afterwards.



Perhaps. But if he was in that agitated of a state of mind, then I'm left wondering why he took the trouble of locking Meredith's door if a rapid exit was the only thing on his mind.



Not to me they don't.
Click to expand...

While I disagree with your general argument (but have no intention of counter-arguing once again), I wanted to ask how you figure that using the bathroom first "would place him in Filomena's room when Meredith arrived home". Please can you explain how this would place him in Filomena's room, and not in the bathroom. I'm having a lot of trouble figuring out your logic here.
 
Amazer said:
I guess we just don't have enough data to reach a conclusion either way.



They sure do. And of course officially he doesn't have a record of B&E.
Click to expand...

I guess that means we have reasonable doubt in this area then........
 
LondonJohn said:
While I disagree with your general argument (but have no intention of counter-arguing once again), I wanted to ask how you figure that using the bathroom first "would place him in Filomena's room when Meredith arrived home". Please can you explain how this would place him in Filomena's room, and not in the bathroom. I'm having a lot of trouble figuring out your logic here.
Click to expand...

Because if he used the bathroom first, then by necessity, he would be burgling Filomena's room afterwards. Where else in the house would he be after taking a dump?

And, as I stated before, I find it highly dubious that any burglar would break off a search for valuables right after breaking into a house (as far as I know, Filomena's room is the only room that shows signs of ransacking - this implies that the burglar had only just begun his "job") to use the toilet. Ridiculous, even.
 
LiamG. said:
I see, along with Curatolo and Quintavalle , another "rubbish" witness. The court didn`t only get it wrong with one witness, it got it wrong with even three witnesses.
I think the whole 400+ pages Massei report should be replaced by your 25 lines long theory of the crime.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you'd also like to believe the testimony of Hekuran Kokomani (described in court by the prosecutors as a "key witness"), who said that he encountered a "big black trash bag" in the road - which turned out to be Knox and Sollecito. He said that he then had a bizarre fight with Knox, Sollecito and Guede, during which he threw olives and a cellphone at Knox.

"Witnesses" come forward during investigations for high-profile cases all the time. Sometimes they are genuine, but very often they are either people looking for attention, or people who have honestly convinced themselves that they have important information.

I expect that the appeal will address the issue of the "scream" witness, 68-year-old Nara Capezzali, who lived in an apartment block across the road (and a car park) from the house. Capezzali seemed to admit in the trial that she couldn't even be sure of the date when she heard this "scream". And it's equally strange that nobody else who lived in the same vicinity reported hearing such a loud, prolonged, harrowing scream at around 11pm (a time when, I suggest, many local residents would still be awake).
 
Fuji said:
Because if he used the bathroom first, then by necessity, he would be burgling Filomena's room afterwards. Where else in the house would he be after taking a dump?

And, as I stated before, I find it highly dubious that any burglar would break off a search for valuables right after breaking into a house (as far as I know, Filomena's room is the only room that shows signs of ransacking - this implies that the burglar had only just begun his "job") to use the toilet. Ridiculous, even.
Click to expand...

But what if - what if - the would-be burglar was still in the bathroom, mid-defecation (if you will), when Meredith arrived home. Please go back and read the original post, because this is what has been suggested right from the start...
 
Amazer said:
We indeed have reasonable doubt.... where does that leave us? Is he guilty of fear induced bowel movement or not?
Click to expand...

We don't know. But we do know that it's plausible and reasonable. And that's all that the defence would need to show if it decided to use an "alternative hypothesis" element in the appeal.
 
LondonJohn said:
But what if - what if - the would-be burglar was still in the bathroom, mid-defecation (if you will), when Meredith arrived home. Please go back and read the original post, because this is what has been suggested right from the start...
Click to expand...

I read the original post. I understand that the usual defense narrative places Rudy on the crapper when Meredith arrives home. However, as I've laid out, I reject the narrative in this particular instance, because in my experience it makes absolutely no sense. To my mind, there's no way that, within a few moments of breaking in and tearing the place apart, Rudy stops to take a dump.

Someone who's concerned enough about being caught to kill the only witness to their crime is not someone I see non-chalantly interrupting a B&E for a bathroom break.
 
LondonJohn said:
We don't know. But we do know that it's plausible and reasonable. And that's all that the defence would need to show if it decided to use an "alternative hypothesis" element in the appeal.
Click to expand...

I would say that it's not impossible (thus plausible) but I do have difficulty accepting that it's reasonable. I'd need a little more data then that before I'm ready to make that leap.
 
Stellafane said:
A sympathetic interpretation of this conduct is that Knox's supporters are so convinced that she is incapable of murder, there must be some alternate explanation, however improbable. A less charitable view would be that they know all too well that Knox is guilty, but simply don't care .
Click to expand...

A less than charitable view of the behaviour of ‘guilters’ is that they don’t care if Knox, Sollicito or Guede are guilty or innocent, but they are authoritarian sheep who tend to come unglued at critique of authority in any form.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom