Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

The cottage was empty. It's what makes any house a target for burglars.

You also claim that the shutters were closed at the time of entry. Filomena's testimony indicated she didn't really remember if she closed the shutters. Even if she had, they didn't close properly, could not be latched and could easily be opened from the outside.

And how many other properties were burgled in Perugia that week, or even that night? Was this property really "special to the exclusion of everywhere else"?

 

[Tricky]

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that some of our members are able to discuss this thread in an unmoderated fashion without slipping into incivility and personal attacks. The experiment in letting you police yourselves has, at least for the moment, failed.

So back on "moderated" status it goes. I hate that. I really do, because I don't want to have to read every post in this brain-numbing thread, but I (or other mods) will do so, because you can't behave yourselves.

Don't expect a lot of leeway.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[LondonJohn]

I wonder if there's a publicly-available record of domestic burglary numbers in Perugia for 2007? It would be interesting to place things in a little more context...

 

[Danceme]

That's interesting to hear. Was there a 'language barrier' at all?

I can understand that Italians, and Perugians in paticular would be pissed off with what some "outside critics" are saying, but I'm afraid to say they've earnt it. I saw the footage outside the court when Amanda was taken away after the verdict, and it was truly sickening.

Their hearts could hardly become any more hardened toward AK than they have been, and frankly I think they need to grow up.

Supernaut, your statement comes from a position of strong belief in Amanda's innocence and so you feel terrible for her conviction. What you are forgetting is that those celebrating the convictions did so from an equally strong belief in her guilt, and as such, they were elated for the convictions. It was an understandable reaction from those convinced of their guilt and probably uncertain of a conviction after such a long trial.

OK, I will take on this challenge. In my scenario, this was a disorganized, unplanned sexual homicide like hundreds that occur throughout the world every year. It happened as follows:

<snip>


9:45 PM - He puts his shoe back on and returns to Meredith’s room, where he pulls the duvet from the bed and spreads it over her body. He goes through her purse, and he takes her money along with two cell phones that he discards on the way back to his apartment.

The scenario was going along pretty good until this point. This is always where you lose me. If Guede washed his shoes, where are the faint blood and water shoeprints which should have been detected with luminol leading from the small bathroom back to Meredith's room? They are not there. There is no reason to believe he washed them with anything stronger than water nor is there evidence he dried them on something first, so his shoeprints should logically have been there. He wasn't trying to erase all evidence of his presence so he probably spent only enough time rinsing them as he needed.

Also, you posted a summary of selected DNA results which I found rather illuminating. It appears on December 18th when the bra clasp was collected, which has been subjected to countless arguments of being either planted or contamination, the beige purse and bloody sweatshirt of Meredith were also collected at that same time. Those two when tested showed the DNA of Meredith and Rudy Guede while the bra clasp when tested showed the DNA of Meredith and Rafaelle Sollecito. I did not know before this the purse and sweatshirt evidence against Rudy was collected at the same time they picked up the bra clasp.

The contamination or planted evidence argument is now officially dead for me.

I am honestly surprised that we are discussing the difficulty of climbing down in comparison to climbing up. It is human nature to have a fear of falling. Not everyone has this fear. Most people do. When you step off of a roof onto a ladder it is much more difficult for most people. This is common knowledge. The window would be no different.

I agree with the fear of falling being human nature. That's why, if I were the intruder and was trying to leave in a hurry via the window, I would be more inclined to step up onto the window sill from inside the room and just jump down. It's only just over 3 metres isn't it, not exceptionally high? I find it exceedingly unlikely someone would somehow get onto that sill, turn themselves around and maneuver into some backward position that allows them to dangle from the sill and then let go, all without disturbing the broken glass either.

 

[Fulcanelli]

If Stefanoni actually did what you said, she would be incompetent. If one actually took all of the biological material first for DNA testing, then there would be nothing left and the blood test would be meaningless. However, she split the sample, according to Perugia-Shock.“So she said O la va o la spacca, make it or break it, and took a 20% of it to test it for blood: negative. The test failed but Dr Patrizia wasn't discouraged and she took what remained, about 20 microliters, she dried it to 10 and tested it for DNA.”

On a different subject, one follow-up test to luminol for blood is the Kastle-Meyer test, which is more specific.

They used that...in the little bathroom.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

And the requirement to scale a sheer eleven foot wall and gain entry via window covered with closed external shutters in full view of the main road and anyone entering the cottage drive all starting from a sloping piece of ground is hardly an 'opportunity' is it? And opportunity for what anyway...what would have been the perceived pay off? It sounds like a huge amount of effort and risk for...what? What was the treasure? What was the gold at the end of the rainbow that drove such determination? Why was the cottage all of a sudden the most eligible house in Perugia to warrant such exploits? What was wrong with all the others? Someone tell me.

Nobody has ever provided an answer to this basic question...what made the cottage so special to the exclusion of everywhere else?

And more specifically, what was special about Filomena's room? And what was he expecting to find, given that he didn't bother with Filomena's jewelry? (Meredith's blood was found in Filomena's room, which argues that at least some of the ransacking occurred after the murder, e.g., the burglary didn't stop because of Meredith).

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

The scenario was going along pretty good until this point. This is always where you lose me. If Guede washed his shoes, where are the faint blood and water shoeprints which should have been detected with luminol leading from the small bathroom back to Meredith's room? They are not there. There is no reason to believe he washed them with anything stronger than water nor is there evidence he dried them on something first, so his shoeprints should logically have been there. He wasn't trying to erase all evidence of his presence so he probably spent only enough time rinsing them as he needed.

The footprint appeared to have been made with bloody water, which, when tested for DNA, matched the victim. A visible streak of blood was found in the drain of the bidet, and a line of droplets, also made with bloody water rather than unadulterated blood, was visible in the basin of the bidet. There were also a number of other, smaller bloodstains on the rug. What do you think happened?

 

[Bob001]

I agree with the fear of falling being human nature. That's why, if I were the intruder and was trying to leave in a hurry via the window, I would be more inclined to step up onto the window sill from inside the room and just jump down. It's only just over 3 metres isn't it, not exceptionally high?

Jumping eleven feet to a paved street is an almost guaranteed way to break something -- ankles, knees, the elbow you fall on, your head etc. Jump off a chair two feet off the ground onto a hard floor and feel the stress it puts on your ankles and knees. You might even have some trouble keeping your balance. Now look out a second-floor window and imagine how much more force you will absorb if you jump from the sill-- and that's if you land upright, which might not be easy on a hill. Climbing out backward and hanging by your hands before dropping is the way almost anybody would do this if they had to. But it's hard to imagine why Rudy (or anybody else) wouldn't leave the house by the front door.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

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.

Welcome to the JREF forums. You may find the atmosphere here a little different to that at the PMF forums.

This is an argument referred to as "argument by anecdote", although it's probably better described as "appeal to unspecified anecdote" because you haven't actually stated what aspects of your experience make you doubt what aspects of the AK & RS defence arguments.

"Argument by anecdote" is worthless, for the same reason that a scientific study of the effects of a given drug that only uses one experimental subject is worthless. There is simply no reason to believe that any one instance is representative of the phenomenon as a whole. (In addition, knaves and idiots are as capable of putting forward anecdotes as honest and rational people).

It's far better to actually look at a large and hopefully representative sample of cases, and when we do that it turns out that Amanda is the sort of person likely to give a false statement under pressure, that the conditions she was under were the kind likely to elicit a false statement, and that her statement is far more consistent with a false statement than with a true confession.

 

[quadraginta]

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"

I'm pretty sure that you didn't really mean your item "a)" to read the way it does. At least I hope not.

As I mentioned earlier, I expect that the lock assembly on that door is designed in such a fashion that the exterior deadbolt cylinder operates both the deadbolt and the springbolt. This configuration is a 'key entry only' approach which is far from unusual. Where it was not well thought out is the idea of having a spring latched component which mandates 'key entry only' from one side on a residential entry door. I expect that this was in a misguided attempt to design a system which would allow a resident to conveniently open the door while at home, say for visitors or delivery, without having to use their key each time, and without having to sacrifice security by having a door unsecured from the outside. I expect it was also compounded by the sales attraction of the unusual appearance. This was a trade-off in appearance and security v. convenience which backfired as many such trade-offs do, because of a user's insistence on convenience. The problem was compounded by the double cylinder deadbolt.

'Key entry only' in some fashion or other is very common on entry doors. I say "in some fashion" because alternatives are usually provided which suffer the handicap of being less secure under some usages, and the choice is left up to the user.

By way of example I am looking at the entry door to my apartment. It is a fairly typical configuration, and standardized in the hundreds of apartments in this complex. As is common with residential doors in the U.S. there are two"orb" type lock assemblies. One is a deadbolt, in this case a single cylinder deadbolt with an interior thumbturn. (Double cylinder deadbolts are problematic in such applications, not least because of fire safety issues, but also because there is no real increase in security. Once a perp has gotten inside a home there aren't a lot of good reasons to try and keep him there. The extra key cylinder doesn't make the lock any more tamper proof.)

Anyway, the other orb set in this instance is a simple "passage set", such as you might find on a closet door. It cannot be locked from either side. It operates the springbolt ... and that is all it does.

This configuration is elegant in its simplicity. Springbolt latches are inherently less secure (someone already mentioned the old credit card trick) and to have it lockable from the inside is essentially redundant, because the deadbolt provides the only real security available, and the thumbturn for it is right there, convenient. When leaving the apartment a key is required to lock the door, and thus there is no danger of forgetting your key.

The door hardware configuration in the Knox case seems to be an example both of design and marketing catering to misguided preconceptions (in the sense that "more is better") and of a failure to have thought out the inevitable consequences of the user's demand for convenience. The springbolt assembly, being inoperable from the outside, provided a certain sense of security for when the residents were at home and the deadbolt was not engaged. The deadbolt, due to its double cylinder application, seemed somehow "safer", even though that was illusory, but because of the inconvenience would only be used for such things as 'locking up for the night'. This was all just dandy, and plausible on the surface of it, until someone went to check the mail or visit the kids downstairs ... and locked themselves out a few times.

User ingenuity ensued. The spring latch was rendered inoperable by the age-old method of jamming something in it to keep it retracted. It is not needful to attribute fault to the owner, the installer, or even the manufacturer (whose product was not used as intended.)

So it really isn't "inexplicable" that there was no handle operating the spring latch on the outside of the door. But it is an interesting example of how door security can be over-thought and over-sold, how aesthetics can interfere with function in surprising ways, and why double deadbolts on residential entry doors are more of a PITA than of any real advantage. I would be surprised (not certain, though, which was why I was trying to find specs on this particular mortise assembly) if the lock body itself wasn't designed to accept an exterior handle, and that one could be retrofitted with comparative ease. (For a door hardware installer, at any rate.) Changing the interior deadbolt cylinder to a thumbturn is child's play.

--------------------------

More interesting to me is thinking about the consequences of defeating that spring latch in such a fashion. In all likelihood the result of jamming that latch back would be apparent to anyone trying to operate the lever handle on the inside. I admit that I would be more sensitive to such discrepancies than most people because of my experience, but this probably wouldn't have been subtle. The handle would have felt, well ... floppy, I guess. Or maybe rigid and stuck. (All this depending on the working mechanism of the lock design.)

Nearly anyone who tried to use it would have immediately thought, "This thing ain't right." It would catch their attention. If they had any thought of securing the door for whatever reason, harmless or malign, they would have been drawn to pay extra attention to it.

I stress this because the suggestion that Guede would have locked the entry door when leaving has been so cavalierly dismissed by the idea that "he thought it was latched. I just don't think so.

I was skeptical before when all I had to go on was a nebulous assertion that the latch was "broken", but now than I have seen exactly what "broken" really consists of I am more than skeptical.

I can imagine as many scenarios as anyone else that rationalize why Guede would have so purposefully locked the bedroom door, but so thoughtlessly left the entry door unsecured. Maybe even more. Most are possible, some even plausible (sort of), but none are probable or likely.

What is quite likely is that someone who was attempting to fabricate the impression of a stranger intruder, and having to support that fiction over different interviews at diferent points in time might not have thought out the inconsistencies implied by the state of the two different doors. The relatively unique configuration of this door and its "user modification" created an inconsistency which needed to be glossed over. To me it is another stone in the wall.

I think Knox initially claimed that she found the entry door unsecured because in her mind, at that moment, it somehow reinforced the stranger intruder scenario. I think that Meredith's door was locked in an attempt to account for her failure to glance in the room even after having "discovered" so many other signs that something was wrong.

I have to think that in retrospect she wishes that she hadn't done one or the other. Nothing about the state of the doors could ever constitute acceptable evidence in a courtroom, but I have no doubt that it set off alarms in the mind of any competent investigator. It certainly caught my attention.

 

[katy_did]

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.

By 'the other side of the flat' you must mean 'the other side of the room', since that's where the large bathroom is located from Filomena's room. Only the bathroom door separates the main living area from, well, the bathroom. If that's a maze, good thing Rudy didn't gamble on using the other bathroom, what with the door leading to the corridor and the four doors leading off it. He'd probably never have found his way out again.

Rudy also stated that he was in the kitchen, and that he took a swig of orange juice from a carton he took from the fridge (in his version, Meredith was in another part of the house at the time). No doubt he was worried his DNA would be found on it, and was putting forward an explanation in advance as to why he drank straight from the carton in a house where he was a guest (something which might be even more tricky to answer if three people were in the house at the time). The fridge is directly outside the large bathroom.

I think you're wrong about the small bathroom being the more 'natural' one to use for someone in the main living area (which is where Rudy would've been as soon as he stepped out of Filomena's room). He was in the right half of the house to use the large one, and it certainly isn't more likely he'd use the other, as you suggested.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I can imagine as many scenarios as anyone else that rationalize why Guede would have so purposefully locked the bedroom door, but so thoughtlessly left the entry door unsecured. Maybe even more. Most are possible, some even plausible (sort of), but none are probable or likely.

So do you then agree then that we can add this piece of "evidence" to the pile of inconclusive "evidence", and that there is reasonable doubt with regard to the prosecution narrative on this point as well?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

No doubt he was worried his DNA would be found on it, and was putting forward an explanation in advance as to why he drank straight from the carton in a house where he was a guest.

And, yet, for some reason - as concerned as he was about his DNA being found on the orange juice container, he was happily oblivious to the DNA contained in his stool sample in the bathroom.

 

[katy_did]

I stress this because the suggestion that Guede would have locked the entry door when leaving has been so cavalierly dismissed by the idea that "he thought it was latched. I just don't think so.
[...]
What is quite likely is that someone who was attempting to fabricate the impression of a stranger intruder, and having to support that fiction over different interviews at diferent points in time might not have thought out the inconsistencies implied by the state of the two different doors. The relatively unique configuration of this door and its "user modification" created an inconsistency which needed to be glossed over. To me it is another stone in the wall.

Did you have a look at the picture of the door I posted earlier? There appear to be grooves at top and bottom of the door frame, presumably for some kind of roller mechanism. At least, so Dan O suggested when I discussed this with him a while back, and he knows more about it than I do.

Also I think interpreting Guede's failure to lock the front door (which is hardly unlikely or implausible) as yet more evidence against Knox and Sollecito is exactly what's wrong with a lot of people's approach to the case. It would be equally possible to interpret Guede locking the door as evidence of their guilt, too.

Guede wouldn't have locked it because he didn't know about the broken front door! Why would a murderer stop to lock the front door behind him? To allay suspicion? I think the dead body in the bedroom might've blown his cover! Why would he have risked standing outside the house in full view of the street and locking the door?! What, did he want to make sure no one else broke into the house? How thoughtful of him!

I can already hear the arguments. And actually those arguments might be slightly more valid, since I can well imagine that Knox might forget that a supposed burglar wouldn't know the front door was broken, and that only a resident would realize the need to lock it. That's exactly the kind of minor mistake someone faking the entry of a stranger intruder might actually make.

 

[katy_did]

Also, you posted a summary of selected DNA results which I found rather illuminating. It appears on December 18th when the bra clasp was collected, which has been subjected to countless arguments of being either planted or contamination, the beige purse and bloody sweatshirt of Meredith were also collected at that same time. Those two when tested showed the DNA of Meredith and Rudy Guede while the bra clasp when tested showed the DNA of Meredith and Rafaelle Sollecito. I did not know before this the purse and sweatshirt evidence against Rudy was collected at the same time they picked up the bra clasp.

The contamination or planted evidence argument is now officially dead for me.

Can I ask why? That doesn't seem like a particularly logical argument.

It doesn't seem unlikely that, given we know for sure Guede took part in a sexual assault/murder, his DNA would be on some things that were left in the room and not initially tested. That doesn't mean contamination of the scene in the meantime isn't a possibility.

And supposing we assume those two items were the result of contamination. Would that lead us to think Guede was innocent? Hardly. There's non-DNA evidence from Guede which proves he was present immediately after the murder, and his DNA had no business being anywhere in the house anyway. On the other hand, if the DNA on the clasp was the result of contamination, the case against Raffaele (and actually against Amanda too, given the problems with the knife) would fall apart. The two situations are hardly comparable.

 

[Fuji]

Well, he said, just like Amanda did, that this was one of the worst experiences in his life. So I think, he`s in a "better" position to put himself in AK`s shoes than you, as you obviously never experienced a "cruel" interrogation.

Thank you for noticing. You got the gist of it.

 

[Fuji]

And the requirement to scale a sheer eleven foot wall and gain entry via window covered with closed external shutters in full view of the main road and anyone entering the cottage drive all starting from a sloping piece of ground is hardly an 'opportunity' is it? And opportunity for what anyway...what would have been the perceived pay off? It sounds like a huge amount of effort and risk for...what? What was the treasure? What was the gold at the end of the rainbow that drove such determination? Why was the cottage all of a sudden the most eligible house in Perugia to warrant such exploits? What was wrong with all the others? Someone tell me.

Nobody has ever provided an answer to this basic question...what made the cottage so special to the exclusion of everywhere else?

The cottage was empty. It's what makes any house a target for burglars.

And how many other properties were burgled in Perugia that week, or even that night? Was this property really "special to the exclusion of everywhere else"?

I think that Kestrel and LondonJohn are missing Fulcanelli's point, with which I agree. Of course, the cottage was empty - but so were, presumably, hundreds of others on the same evening. And of course, other properties were burgled in Perugia that week (again, presumably). However, what makes it "special to the exclusion of everywhere else" is that this is the house which Rudy allegedly burgled - not any others.

Why this particular house? He had already met AK and MK and knew they were foreign students, who would be unlikely to have any significant portable wealth at the house. Why not select a more lucrative target? The house also doesn't appear to be physically isolated, which again also reduces its likelihood as a target. Finally, why select a house where you are known by sight to most of the residents (MK, AK, the boys downstairs)? If there is a burgalry and you are witnessed near the scene around the time of the crime, you are much more likely to be connected to the crime than if you had selected another house whose occupants (and neighbors) had never seen you before.

Even without going over the minutiae of glass deposits on Filomena's windowsill, I find the whole theory of Rudy entering the house as a burglar with the intention of robbing the place to be most unlikely.

 

[LondonJohn]

I'm pretty sure that you didn't really mean your item "a)" to read the way it does. At least I hope not.

As I mentioned earlier, I expect that the lock assembly on that door is designed in such a fashion that the exterior deadbolt cylinder operates both the deadbolt and the springbolt. This configuration is a 'key entry only' approach which is far from unusual. Where it was not well thought out is the idea of having a spring latched component which mandates 'key entry only' from one side on a residential entry door. I expect that this was in a misguided attempt to design a system which would allow a resident to conveniently open the door while at home, say for visitors or delivery, without having to use their key each time, and without having to sacrifice security by having a door unsecured from the outside. I expect it was also compounded by the sales attraction of the unusual appearance. This was a trade-off in appearance and security v. convenience which backfired as many such trade-offs do, because of a user's insistence on convenience. The problem was compounded by the double cylinder deadbolt.

'Key entry only' in some fashion or other is very common on entry doors. I say "in some fashion" because alternatives are usually provided which suffer the handicap of being less secure under some usages, and the choice is left up to the user.

By way of example I am looking at the entry door to my apartment. It is a fairly typical configuration, and standardized in the hundreds of apartments in this complex. As is common with residential doors in the U.S. there are two"orb" type lock assemblies. One is a deadbolt, in this case a single cylinder deadbolt with an interior thumbturn. (Double cylinder deadbolts are problematic in such applications, not least because of fire safety issues, but also because there is no real increase in security. Once a perp has gotten inside a home there aren't a lot of good reasons to try and keep him there. The extra key cylinder doesn't make the lock any more tamper proof.)

Anyway, the other orb set in this instance is a simple "passage set", such as you might find on a closet door. It cannot be locked from either side. It operates the springbolt ... and that is all it does.

This configuration is elegant in its simplicity. Springbolt latches are inherently less secure (someone already mentioned the old credit card trick) and to have it lockable from the inside is essentially redundant, because the deadbolt provides the only real security available, and the thumbturn for it is right there, convenient. When leaving the apartment a key is required to lock the door, and thus there is no danger of forgetting your key.

The door hardware configuration in the Knox case seems to be an example both of design and marketing catering to misguided preconceptions (in the sense that "more is better") and of a failure to have thought out the inevitable consequences of the user's demand for convenience. The springbolt assembly, being inoperable from the outside, provided a certain sense of security for when the residents were at home and the deadbolt was not engaged. The deadbolt, due to its double cylinder application, seemed somehow "safer", even though that was illusory, but because of the inconvenience would only be used for such things as 'locking up for the night'. This was all just dandy, and plausible on the surface of it, until someone went to check the mail or visit the kids downstairs ... and locked themselves out a few times.

User ingenuity ensued. The spring latch was rendered inoperable by the age-old method of jamming something in it to keep it retracted. It is not needful to attribute fault to the owner, the installer, or even the manufacturer (whose product was not used as intended.)

So it really isn't "inexplicable" that there was no handle operating the spring latch on the outside of the door. But it is an interesting example of how door security can be over-thought and over-sold, how aesthetics can interfere with function in surprising ways, and why double deadbolts on residential entry doors are more of a PITA than of any real advantage. I would be surprised (not certain, though, which was why I was trying to find specs on this particular mortise assembly) if the lock body itself wasn't designed to accept an exterior handle, and that one could be retrofitted with comparative ease. (For a door hardware installer, at any rate.) Changing the interior deadbolt cylinder to a thumbturn is child's play.

--------------------------

More interesting to me is thinking about the consequences of defeating that spring latch in such a fashion. In all likelihood the result of jamming that latch back would be apparent to anyone trying to operate the lever handle on the inside. I admit that I would be more sensitive to such discrepancies than most people because of my experience, but this probably wouldn't have been subtle. The handle would have felt, well ... floppy, I guess. Or maybe rigid and stuck. (All this depending on the working mechanism of the lock design.)

Nearly anyone who tried to use it would have immediately thought, "This thing ain't right." It would catch their attention. If they had any thought of securing the door for whatever reason, harmless or malign, they would have been drawn to pay extra attention to it.

I stress this because the suggestion that Guede would have locked the entry door when leaving has been so cavalierly dismissed by the idea that "he thought it was latched. I just don't think so.

I was skeptical before when all I had to go on was a nebulous assertion that the latch was "broken", but now than I have seen exactly what "broken" really consists of I am more than skeptical.

I can imagine as many scenarios as anyone else that rationalize why Guede would have so purposefully locked the bedroom door, but so thoughtlessly left the entry door unsecured. Maybe even more. Most are possible, some even plausible (sort of), but none are probable or likely.

What is quite likely is that someone who was attempting to fabricate the impression of a stranger intruder, and having to support that fiction over different interviews at diferent points in time might not have thought out the inconsistencies implied by the state of the two different doors. The relatively unique configuration of this door and its "user modification" created an inconsistency which needed to be glossed over. To me it is another stone in the wall.

I think Knox initially claimed that she found the entry door unsecured because in her mind, at that moment, it somehow reinforced the stranger intruder scenario. I think that Meredith's door was locked in an attempt to account for her failure to glance in the room even after having "discovered" so many other signs that something was wrong.

I have to think that in retrospect she wishes that she hadn't done one or the other. Nothing about the state of the doors could ever constitute acceptable evidence in a courtroom, but I have no doubt that it set off alarms in the mind of any competent investigator. It certainly caught my attention.

But:

1) What makes you confident that the key would also operate the spring latch? It doesn't look that way to me - they look like totally independently-operated entities.

2) The girls in the house complained (and were worried) that the door would not stay shut when closed, unless it was locked with the key. With that in mind, don't you think that they would have looked at the spring latch, and would have quickly seen (as we all did from the photos) that the latch could easily be re-enabled by removing the obstruction. If, as you suggest, the latch could be operated by the key from the outside face, it seems highly likely to me that the girls would re-activate the spring latch. This is because I think they would easily be prepared to trade off the risk of locking themselves out without a key for the security of having the door close securely via the latch. However, if their keys would not operate the spring latch in addition to the cylinder lock, then removing the obstruction to re-activate the spring latch would not be a viable option for the girls.

 

[LondonJohn]

Also, you posted a summary of selected DNA results which I found rather illuminating. It appears on December 18th when the bra clasp was collected, which has been subjected to countless arguments of being either planted or contamination, the beige purse and bloody sweatshirt of Meredith were also collected at that same time. Those two when tested showed the DNA of Meredith and Rudy Guede while the bra clasp when tested showed the DNA of Meredith and Rafaelle Sollecito. I did not know before this the purse and sweatshirt evidence against Rudy was collected at the same time they picked up the bra clasp.

The contamination or planted evidence argument is now officially dead for me.


I agree with the fear of falling being human nature. That's why, if I were the intruder and was trying to leave in a hurry via the window, I would be more inclined to step up onto the window sill from inside the room and just jump down. It's only just over 3 metres isn't it, not exceptionally high? I find it exceedingly unlikely someone would somehow get onto that sill, turn themselves around and maneuver into some backward position that allows them to dangle from the sill and then let go, all without disturbing the broken glass either.

1) Why would the (seeming) fact that the bra clasp, handbag (purse) and sweatshirt were all collected over six weeks after the crime mean - in and of itself - that the "contamination or planted evidence argument is now officially dead" for you? I presume you might be implying that it's impossible for the sweatshirt and handbag to show valid DNA results but for the bra clasp to show invalid DNA results (as a consequence of either contamination or more deliberate malpractice). Please could you expand further on why this is a logical conclusion to draw?

2) There's no issue around how an intruder might have exited Filomena's window, since a) nobody's argued that, and b) the condition of the front door suggests that this is how any intruder chose to leave. So an argument about whether someone would jump straight from the ledge to the ground, versus whether they would turn round and suspend themselves from the ledge before dropping down, is moot.

 

[Fuji]

Welcome to the JREF forums. You may find the atmosphere here a little different to that at the PMF forums.

Thank you for the welcome. However, I should note that I do not post at the PMF forums, and I'm not sure why you would assume that to be the case.

This is an argument referred to as "argument by anecdote", although it's probably better described as "appeal to unspecified anecdote" because you haven't actually stated what aspects of your experience make you doubt what aspects of the AK & RS defence arguments.

I do not think so. There is no neat dichotomy between "experts" and the unwashed masses. My experiences have informed how I view this case, much as, for example, Steve Moore's experiences have informed how he views it. On a theoretical spectrum of experience-based knowledge with regards to criminal investigations, I'm sure that he is much further to the "knowledgeable" side than I am. However, it should be remembered that it is a spectrum - not a dichotomy - and there are, presumably, others with even more experience in these matters than him.

You are correct that, for the most part, I haven't specifically mentioned what aspects of my experience make me doubt the defense narrative. Those specific aspects are present in my internal monologue, but I will try to be more explicit in future arguments.

"Argument by anecdote" is worthless, for the same reason that a scientific study of the effects of a given drug that only uses one experimental subject is worthless. There is simply no reason to believe that any one instance is representative of the phenomenon as a whole. (In addition, knaves and idiots are as capable of putting forward anecdotes as honest and rational people).

Likewise, there is no reason to believe that any one instance is entirely non-representative of the phenomenon as a whole. At any rate, your line of argument is largely moot, because I have had a multitude of experiences with crime and the law that inform my judgment of AK's & RS's guilt. It is not simply one data point.

It's far better to actually look at a large and hopefully representative sample of cases, and when we do that it turns out that Amanda is the sort of person likely to give a false statement under pressure, that the conditions she was under were the kind likely to elicit a false statement, and that her statement is far more consistent with a false statement than with a true confession.

Even allowing for a higher probablility of AK giving a false statement than a random sample of the population, all you have is that - a higher probability. You don't know that it happened in this case. I believe that it probably didn't.