Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Fuji]

So, you only think it plausible that Rudy might have taken a well-earned bathroom break after a good hour, say, of energetically ransacking the house? I'm tempted to repeat your last sentence...

I'm pretty sure you meant this statement sarcastically, but I'm actually inclined to agree with you.

As I said previously, a bowel movement left at the scene of the crime by a burglar implies that he was not expecting to be interrupted. In your sarcastic scenario, taking an hour to ransack a small house would certainly be indicative of someone assuming they had all the time in the world, and as such, taking time for a bathroom break would be believable.

However, in the Perugia case this is not the sitaution. If Rudy actually broke in Filomena's window to perform a burglary, then it would appear from the evidence that he used the bathroom within moments of entering her room. It is this which I find highly implausible.

Burglars do all manner of things when breaking and entering a property. It's often how they get caught. For example:

I read your link, but the examples you gave are very short of any precious detail. The one example listed in which the burglar also defecated at the scene does not describe at all the circumstances of the burgalry. It could very well be that in this case, the burglar selected a home where he knew the residents were on vacation, and left the feces after taking several hours to methodically empty the dwelling of all its valuables. I would be willing to wager that the example listed in the article is from this kind of burglary, as opposed to the crime of opportunity B&E which Rudy's alleged acts fall under.

 

[christianahannah]

From the below graphics (and assuming their layouts are correct) if Rudy came in through Filomena's window and needed to use the bathroom after doing so, it appears the possible bathroom to use would have been the small bathroom - Meredith's and Amanda's. Assuming all doors are open the small bathroom is easier to find than the large bathroom (when exiting Filomena's room and looking down the hallway).

http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image_page.php?album_id=13&image_id=49
http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image_page.php?album_id=13&image_id=39
http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image_page.php?album_id=13&image_id=38

 

[LondonJohn]

I'm pretty sure you meant this statement sarcastically, but I'm actually inclined to agree with you.

As I said previously, a bowel movement left at the scene of the crime by a burglar implies that he was not expecting to be interrupted. In your sarcastic scenario, taking an hour to ransack a small house would certainly be indicative of someone assuming they had all the time in the world, and as such, taking time for a bathroom break would be believable.

However, in the Perugia case this is not the sitaution. If Rudy actually broke in Filomena's window to perform a burglary, then it would appear from the evidence that he used the bathroom within moments of entering her room. It is this which I find highly implausible.



I read your link, but the examples you gave are very short of any precious detail. The one example listed in which the burglar also defecated at the scene does not describe at all the circumstances of the burgalry. It could very well be that in this case, the burglar selected a home where he knew the residents were on vacation, and left the feces after taking several hours to methodically empty the dwelling of all its valuables. I would be willing to wager that the example listed in the article is from this kind of burglary, as opposed to the crime of opportunity B&E which Rudy's alleged acts fall under.

This was never presented as a crime of opportunity. In fact, breaking and entering is almost by definition never a crime of opportunity.

An example of a crime of opportunity would have been if Guede happened to have been walking whistling down the road past the cottage, and noticed the door swinging open in the breeze. The thought might suddenly have occurred to him to dart into the house and take anything of value - i.e. he would seize the opportunity which presented itself to him.

 

[Fuji]

So, if I understand correctly, your position is that you're saying that

1) Guede can't have visited the bathroom to defecate shortly after entering Filomena's room through the broken window, because this idea is ridiculous/unbelievable/incredible.

2) This is not an argument from incredulity.

Actually, if you change "can't have visited" to "most likely did not visit", then sure.

But more substantively, is it always fallacious to assert that any given event is unlikely to occur? I believe in probablilities, not certainties. I take great pains in my conversations to use qualifying words, such as "almost always, probably, unlikely" and avoid uses of "never" and "always".

When I state that I find it highly implausible that Rudy took a bathroom break after ransacking Filomena's room, I am attaching a probability to that situation. I am not trying to use deductive reasoning to proceed from one sentence to the next as part of a formal proof.

 

[LondonJohn]

Fixed that for you.

But more substantively, is it always fallacious to assert that any given event is unlikely to occur? I believe in probablilities, not certainties. I take great pains in my conversations to use qualifying words, such as "almost always, probably, unlikely" and avoid uses of "never" and "always".

When I state that I find it highly implausible that Rudy took a bathroom break after ransacking Filomena's room, I am attaching a probability to that situation. I am not trying to use deductive reasoning to proceed from one sentence to the next as part of a formal proof.

Ummm...sorry. To change someone else's words when you quote them is completely and utterly out of order. Please edit this post accordingly, to fix your error. Thank you.

 

[Mrs.Columbo]

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.

I agree, so he could have left out every piece of evidence - and saved a lot of time and money in that 11-month-trial to the delight of the italian taxpayers.
I wonder if there has been even sufficient evidence to start the trial.
Too bad the defense could not explain this convincing enough.

 

[Fuji]

This was never presented as a crime of opportunity.

Actually, I don't believe that it was presented as a crime of opportunity - or any type of crime at all - in the trials of the three defendants. RG asserted that he was invited inside by Meredith, while AK and RS didn't touch the issue at all, as I recall, other than showing that RG could have gone in through Filomena's window.

In fact, breaking and entering is almost by definition never a crime of opportunity.

This is utter nonsense.

As noted by the UK's Metropolitan Police:

"Burglary, on the whole, is an opportunist crime. A burglar will select his target because it offers him the best opportunity to carry out his crime undetected and with the fewest number of obstacles in his way."

An example of a crime of opportunity would have been if Guede happened to have been walking whistling down the road past the cottage, and noticed the door swinging open in the breeze. The thought might suddenly have occurred to him to dart into the house and take anything of value - i.e. he would seize the opportunity which presented itself to him.

You may be correct that Rudy's alleged B&E wasn't a crime of opportunity, strictly speaking. Or you might be wrong. Rudy himself never admitted to it, so all we have is guesswork as to why he (allegedly) broke in to Meredith's house. Maybe he really was walking past the cottage, as in your hypothetical, and decided on the spur of the moment to rob the place. Or maybe instead, he thought the house would be empty all weekend. Who knows.

 

[LondonJohn]

I agree, so he could have left out every piece of evidence - and saved a lot of time and money in that 11-month-trial to the delight of the italian taxpayers.
I wonder if there has been even sufficient evidence to start the trial.
Too bad the defense could not explain this convincing enough.

ermmm??

What some of us (including myself) are alleging is that either:

a) the judicial panel may have incorrectly convicted Knox and Sollecito based on the evidence presented to them.

b) the judicial panel decision was correct based on the evidence presented in trial, but some of the evidence may have been given incorrect weight and levels of certainly by the prosecution.

c) The judicial panel decision was correct, but some of the evidence may not have been properly or sufficiently challenged in court by the defence attorneys (this point is of course potentially linked with point (b) ).

d) there may be other exculpatory evidence, or new challenges to existing evidence, which was not presented in the original trial.

 

[Fuji]

Ummm...sorry. To change someone else's words when you quote them is completely and utterly out of order. Please edit this post accordingly, to fix your error. Thank you.

Sorry - was not aware that was an infraction. I've changed it back.

Now again - about my errors of reasoning?

 

[LondonJohn]

Actually, I don't believe that it was presented as a crime of opportunity - or any type of crime at all - in the trials of the three defendants. RG asserted that he was invited inside by Meredith, while AK and RS didn't touch the issue at all, as I recall, other than showing that RG could have gone in through Filomena's window.



This is utter nonsense.

As noted by the UK's Metropolitan Police:

"Burglary, on the whole, is an opportunist crime. A burglar will select his target because it offers him the best opportunity to carry out his crime undetected and with the fewest number of obstacles in his way."




You may be correct that Rudy's alleged B&E wasn't a crime of opportunity, strictly speaking. Or you might be wrong. Rudy himself never admitted to it, so all we have is guesswork as to why he (allegedly) broke in to Meredith's house. Maybe he really was walking past the cottage, as in your hypothetical, and decided on the spur of the moment to rob the place. Or maybe instead, he thought the house would be empty all weekend. Who knows.

It was you who said that this was a crime of opportunity in the first place............

 

[LondonJohn]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_of_opportunity

 

[Fuji]

It was you who said that this was a crime of opportunity in the first place............

In the context in which I did so it was to distinguish Rudy's alleged burglary from those of professional, organized criminals who case their mark and are near certain that the house is unoccupied and will remain so for quite some time, thus allowing them the luxury of a relatively unrushed job in which a bathroom break would not be out of place.

I apologize for the imprecision in my initial use of term "crime of opportunity". I was not using it in a formal sense, but rather, a relative one.

 

[Fuji]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_of_opportunity

Yes, and... what exactly?

What does that have to do with your mistaken assertion that "breaking and entering is almost by definition never a crime of opportunity"?

 

[katy_did]

As I said previously, a bowel movement left at the scene of the crime by a burglar implies that he was not expecting to be interrupted. In your sarcastic scenario, taking an hour to ransack a small house would certainly be indicative of someone assuming they had all the time in the world, and as such, taking time for a bathroom break would be believable.

However, in the Perugia case this is not the sitaution. If Rudy actually broke in Filomena's window to perform a burglary, then it would appear from the evidence that he used the bathroom within moments of entering her room. It is this which I find highly implausible.

And I might equally argue that it would make more sense for Rudy to use the bathroom not long after arriving in the house, so's he could fully concentrate on the more important business of burglary. Or to minimize the chances of being caught in there, since the more time he spent in the house, the more chance of someone coming back.

Or that he just had to go.

This is another of those non-arguments in which either scenario is entirely possible, but in which the one that would contradict the prosecution case is arbitrarily dismissed. Of course Rudy could've used the bathroom when he first entered the house; in fact as LJ said, the adrenalin of breaking in might (along with the kebab) have caused the 'just gotta go' situation in the first place. Equally, he could've used it later on.

But there is nothing to contradict the idea that he used it within 30 minutes of arriving, and that he was in there when Meredith arrived; in fact, the unflushed toilet would rather support that idea.

 

[christianahannah]

But there is nothing to contradict the idea that he used it within 30 minutes of arriving, and that he was in there when Meredith arrived; in fact, the unflushed toilet would rather support that idea.

Since it cannot be dated when he used the bathroom the most we can state from that fact is that Rudy was in the flat at some point - no more, no less.

And as I stated before, the bathroom with better access and visibility for Rudy upon existing Filomena's bedroom would have been the small bathroom.

 

[katy_did]

It also seems odd to me that these entirely plausible scenarios - Rudy using the bathroom shortly after arriving in the house, Rudy failing to lock the front door - are dismissed as entirely unrealistic by the same posters who apparently believe the idea of three near-strangers colluding to rape and murder a girl for no particular reason is entirely plausible. Where are all these 'oh but it couldn't possibly happen that way' objections to this far more unrealistic scenario?

 

[katy_did]

Since it cannot be dated when he used the bathroom the most we can state from that fact is that Rudy was in the flat at some point - no more, no less.

And as I stated before, the bathroom with better access and visibility for Rudy upon existing Filomena's bedroom would have been the small bathroom.

If you read my post, you'll see that I never claimed there was proof he used the bathroom immediately (in fact I explicitly said either scenario was possible); it was the other poster who was claiming this was implausible. Your point might be better directed to them.

I think you're wrong about Filomena's bedroom. Her door opens into the living room/kitchen (not the corridor), and the big bathroom opens directly off that room. The small bathroom is at the other end of the house, at the far end of the corridor used by Amanda and Meredith.

 

[christianahannah]

If you read my post, you'll see that I never claimed there was proof he used the bathroom immediately (in fact I explicitly said either scenario was possible); it was the other poster who was claiming this was implausible. Your point might be better directed to them.

I think you're wrong about Filomena's bedroom. Her door opens into the living room/kitchen (not the corridor), and the big bathroom opens directly off that room. The small bathroom is at the other end of the house, at the far end of the corridor used by Amanda and Meredith.

You are correct - Filomena's door opens to the living room/kitchen and to the immediate left is the door to the corridor (which may or may not have been open) and the small bathroom. Compare this with the large bathroom which needs to be accessed by a maze of doors on the other side of the flat.

 

[Fuji]

And I might equally argue that it would make more sense for Rudy to use the bathroom not long after arriving in the house, so's he could fully concentrate on the more important business of burglary.

"Concentrate"? What is he now - a safecracker? There's almost no thinking at all involved - grab as much valuable & portable stuff as you can carry, and get the hell out of there ASAP. That's it. I'm pretty sure a chimp could be trained to burgle a house.

Or to minimize the chances of being caught in there, since the more time he spent in the house, the more chance of someone coming back.

This is actually an argument in favor of him not using the bathroom at all!

Or that he just had to go.

If he "just had to go", then it is most likely the case that he was in the same state just moments previously, when he initially entered through the window. If he was in that much distress, he would've gone right away to the toilet (but again, ONLY if he thought no one would be returning that night), or he would've just held it 'til after he left since as you note: "the more time he spent in the house, the more chance of someone coming back".

This is another of those non-arguments in which either scenario is entirely possible, but in which the one that would contradict the prosecution case is arbitrarily dismissed. Of course Rudy could've used the bathroom when he first entered the house; in fact as LJ said, the adrenalin of breaking in might (along with the kebab) have caused the 'just gotta go' situation in the first place. Equally, he could've used it later on.

I am hardly discarding alternative scenarios "arbitrarily". I see some scenarios as being much more likely than others, as I'm sure you do as well. As I do so, I provide my reasoning. Hardly arbitrary.

But there is nothing to contradict the idea that he used it within 30 minutes of arriving, and that he was in there when Meredith arrived; in fact, the unflushed toilet would rather support that idea.

You are correct that there is nothing to logically contradict your version of events in this case. However, I find it to be extremely unlikely.

 

[Fuji]

It also seems odd to me that these entirely plausible scenarios - Rudy using the bathroom shortly after arriving in the house, Rudy failing to lock the front door - are dismissed as entirely unrealistic by the same posters who apparently believe the idea of three near-strangers colluding to rape and murder a girl for no particular reason is entirely plausible. Where are all these 'oh but it couldn't possibly happen that way' objections to this far more unrealistic scenario?

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, my personal experience is what leads me to believe AK & RS are probably guilty.

I have no experience with murder, other than what I read and see on TV. As such, I am inclined to give the prosecution some leeway in establishing a narrative that provides a motive for the murder.

However, I have considerable personal experience (from 20 years ago) of arrests, interrogations, witness statements, illegal drugs, and burglaries. As such, I am much more inclined to spot what I believe to be inconsistencies and unlikelihoods of the AK & RS defense as it touches on these domains than I am with regard to the prosecution narrative for the murder itself.