Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

Let's recap.

In this post, you say:

"I believe that some criminal psychologists interpret this defecation phenomenon as a complex combination of "territory marking" and a psycho-physiological response to heightened anxiety/fear. There are very, very few nonchalant burglars. Most of them (backed up by studies and post-arrest interviews) are something between very nervous and terrified while they are actually committing the crime."

I replied by saying:

"So the experienced burglar is having a panic-induced colon blowout?"

To which you replied:

"Why might Guede's previous (alleged) experience of burglary greatly diminish any heightened sense of fear/anxiety during this break-and-enter? Do antelope which are being chased by lions experience any less fear on account of the herd having been chased by lions previously?"


Your initial post in this exchange referred to a physiological response to burglary-related anxiety. You were the first one to bring this up. You used the formulations "very, very few nonchalant burglars", "most of them", and "between very nervous and terrified" to imply that it is quite common for burglars to experience severe gastric distress during break-ins. In your subsequent post, you make referrence to lions hunting antelopes. It is reasonable to infer from context that you were comparing the terror of hunted prey to the "terror" of an apprehensive burglar.
If you are now disavowing that perceived implication, that is fine with me. I agree that it is most unlikely that any burgalrs experience anywhere near the terror that an antelope fleeing a lion would feel. Which, of course, helps support my assertion that Rudy did not leave a fear-induced deuce at the scene.

Please stop going on about this.

However............. for clarification, viz. the highlighted section:

I used the formations "very, very few nonchalant burglars", "most of them", and "between very nervous and terrified" to imply that most burglars are between nervous and terrified as they break into a property. Nothing more than that. Where did that lead to the "implication" that it is quite common for burglars to experience severe gastric distress during break-ins? In fact, I stated - elsewhere - that it's not unknown for burglars to defecate in properties they are burgling, and posited that criminal psychologists may seek to explain this as a complex behaviour based on territory marking and fear.

And, once again for clarification, it's clear from context that my lion/antelope analogy was about how fear may (or may not) diminish owing to increased number of experiences. It was in direct response to your use of the construct "experienced burglar" in regard to Guede. It in no way compared the absolute level of fear in the lion/antelope situation to that of a burglar entering a property.

 

[LondonJohn]

BobTheDonkey,

Let me restate my beliefs. I have never seen the electropherograms used in Rudy Guede's trial. Until I do, I cannot make final statements about the quality of the data. I have not seen films of the collection of the sweatshirt, but I have seen how the bra clasp was handled; therefore, the same caveat applies here as above. I agree that any piece of evidence not taken immediately into custody is problematic.

When skin to skin contact is strong enough to strangle someone, restrain them, or to leave bruises, I would expect to find DNA. Probably the same would hold for skin to clothing. The lack of reports of DNA on Meredith's neck or skin mean that either these areas were not tested or they were tested and found to be negative. If they were tested and found to be negative of DNA, such a result would fall into the category of exculpatory evidence. DNA on Meredith's sleeve might or might not arise from the time of the struggle. One can also imagine it arising from someone disrobing her after she was stabbed.

If they were not tested, it might be because the amount of blood made it impossible to do so. However, it is difficult to see how this could be true for the nape of the neck, where some bruising was found, IIRC. If the areas were not tested, no conclusions with respect to the defendants can be drawn.

Although I think it's fair to say that - if this is the case - conclusions can most definitely be drawn with respect to the competence and professionalism of the police and forensic scientists.....

 

[LondonJohn]

Most probable is that the blood was on his pant leg and he tried to rinse that off in the bidet. I recall reading that Rudy had made a statement that his pants were soaked in blood and kneeling beside Meredith in the pool of blood would have caused this. The shoe would have been removed before attempting to rinse the pants and the sock would then saturate with a blood/water mix. One of the bloody footprints shows a drip/splatter in addition to the imprint of the shoe. This would be consistent with Rudy's pants being dripping wet with bloody water as Rudy is leaving the cottage.

Very, very good point.

 

[GrouchoMarxist]

Oh man, this! It's as if Guede has to conform to some burglar code of conduct ("always lock the front door behind you - remember, you're a guest! Always use the nearest bathroom, and don't forget to flush". Etc) while the combination of Guede, Knox and Sollecito can rewrite the nature of sex crimes entirely and this is apparently completely plausible.

I think Italian burglars must have a strong union too. They apparently can't be required to over-exert themselves or do anything risky.

 

[katy_did]

The images that Charlie provided (here) make it abundantly clear how this door was intended to function and how it was "modified". In its normal operation, there is a double key deadbolt on the bottom and a spring latch on the top. When the door is simply closed, the spring latch is pushed in by the edge of the strike plate then the spring pushes it back into the hole in the strike plate securing the door closed. The lever handle on the inside will retract the spring bolt to open the door but there is no corresponding handle on the outside so the only way to retract the spring bolt from outside would be with the key. (using a credit card or flick knife would be easier)

Dan, do you think it's possible the round handle on the outside of the door could be an actual functional handle rather than one just for pulling the door shut? In other words, that the handle is linked to the closing/locking mechanism of the door, and works in the same way as the lever handle but is a different style. So you could turn that handle to open the door and operate the latch (if it weren't jammed) and turn it the other way in order to lock the door (equivalent to lifting the door handle to lock it on the other side).

I agree that there are no rollers on the door, and as I said in the other post, I think those grooves are for additional locks which - in the case of two of the doors on our house, anyway - are operated when you lift the handle to lock the door. But if that were the case with this door, there would need to be some way to activate those additional locks on the other side of the door too (or you wouldn't be able to lock it with the key) which is why I'm wondering about the handle.

Hope that's clear, it's a little difficult to describe!

 

[katy_did]

Interesting discussion about the phones over at PMF, with one person wondering why the phones were left on, and another puzzled by why someone would be fiddling with the phones after the murder.

What I'd post over there, if the likes of me were permitted, is that only one of Meredith's phones was left on - the English phone. This is also the phone on which the odd series of calls were made. So what I think happened is that the murderer tried to switch that phone off, and that this explains the aborted calls, as he struggled to figure out how to do it. The reason I don't think he was able to manage it is that he couldn't read the English menu, and was forced in the end to dispose of that phone switched on. He had no such trouble with the Italian phone, which he switched off.

 

[LondonJohn]

The images that Charlie provided (here) make it abundantly clear how this door was intended to function and how it was "modified". In its normal operation, there is a double key deadbolt on the bottom and a spring latch on the top. When the door is simply closed, the spring latch is pushed in by the edge of the strike plate then the spring pushes it back into the hole in the strike plate securing the door closed. The lever handle on the inside will retract the spring bolt to open the door but there is no corresponding handle on the outside so the only way to retract the spring bolt from outside would be with the key. (using a credit card or flick knife would be easier)

The downside of this configuration is that when the tenant goes to take out the trash wearing only a bath robe and slippers, if the door should close behind them they will be locked out. It was probably such a situation that led to the modification.

By jamming the spring bolt in the retracted position, it will no longer operate to hold the door closed. This resolves the problem of getting locked out of ones home in their bath robe but leads to the condition that amanda describes where if the door wasn't locked with a key it would blow open in the wind.

The key operates the deadbolt from either inside or out. It's possible for the lockset to be configured to link the lever handle on the inside to the deadbolt for either locking and/or unlocking the door but this is apparently not the case here.


BTW Kate, the rollers were a deduction based on the earlier outside image and the description of the door operation. There are no rollers visible on this door (though the rollers would be a good suggestion for the current tenants if they don't want the door blowing open in the slightest breeze when it isn't locked with a key).

Are you certain that the key would also operate the spring latch (if the spring latch were not jammed open)? And if you are certain, how are you certain? The two locks (the lever-operated spring latch and the key-operated cylinder deadbolt) look to be independent of each other.

 

[Kestrel]

- the suspect has repeatedly lied to the investigation about her whereabouts and actions on the night of the murder and subsequent morning

An alternative theory is that the police and prosecutors lied.

The Perugia police claimed to have clear video evidence proving that Amanda was at the cottage on the night of the murder. We now know that the car park video in question wasn't clear enough to recognize a person and is actually Meredith returning to the cottage around 9 PM.

As for the next morning, we have the testimony of shopkeeper Marco Quintavalle, who only came forward with this story in August of 2008 claiming to have seen Amanda waiting in front of his store the morning after the murder. But for some reason he didn't mention this when the police contacted him a few days after the murder and after Marco claimed to have recognized Amanda from news reports. His testimony was also refuted by an employee who was in his store that morning.

Funny thing about the witnesses for the prosecution in this case. Most of them seemed to appear about a year after the crime. Telling stories far different from what they were saying a few days after the crime.

 

[LondonJohn]

Interesting discussion about the phones over at PMF, with one person wondering why the phones were left on, and another puzzled by why someone would be fiddling with the phones after the murder.

What I'd post over there, if the likes of me were permitted, is that only one of Meredith's phones was left on - the English phone. This is also the phone on which the odd series of calls were made. So what I think happened is that the murderer tried to switch that phone off, and that this explains the aborted calls, as he struggled to figure out how to do it. The reason I don't think he was able to manage it is that he couldn't read the English menu, and was forced in the end to dispose of that phone switched on. He had no such trouble with the Italian phone, which he switched off.

Absolutely. And it also makes no sense that the English phone was "deliberately left switched on" - so that Knox could successfully register a call attempt to it the following morning. After all, if it had been switched off, Knox would have known* that could equally easily have registered a timed voicemail message ("e.g. Hi Meredith, I'm wondering where you are. Could you give me a call when you pick this up please?"). And Knox/Sollecito/Guede* must also have reasoned that switching off the phone would have greatly reduced the chances of it being found prematurely (i.e during the night or early the following morning). Indeed, the reason the phones were found when they were found appears to be because one of them was ringing.

* Assuming for the sake of this argument that Knox, Sollecito and Guede were jointly involved in the crime, and that at some or all of them were involved in the subsequent cover-up and clean-up.

 

[LondonJohn]

An alternative theory is that the police and prosecutors lied.

The Perugia police claimed to have clear video evidence proving that Amanda was at the cottage on the night of the murder. We now know that the car park video in question wasn't clear enough to recognize a person and is actually Meredith returning to the cottage around 9 PM.

As for the next morning, we have the testimony of shopkeeper Marco Quintavalle, who only came forward with this story in August of 2008 claiming to have seen Amanda waiting in front of his store the morning after the murder. But for some reason he didn't mention this when the police contacted him a few days after the murder and after Marco claimed to have recognized Amanda from news reports. His testimony was also refuted by an employee who was in his store that morning.

Funny thing about the witnesses for the prosecution in this case. Most of them seemed to appear about a year after the crime. Telling stories far different from what they were saying a few days after the crime.

Not to mention the fact that some of the more important incriminating DNA evidence came from within a messed-up pile of dusty clothes and debris, some six-and-a-half weeks after the crime.

 

[LondonJohn]

I see that someone's doing a thoughtful job of demonstrating some of the significant holes in the prosecution's case. Looks like that appeal might have half a chance, eh?

 

[Jungle Jim]

Interesting discussion about the phones over at PMF, with one person wondering why the phones were left on, and another puzzled by why someone would be fiddling with the phones after the murder.

What I'd post over there, if the likes of me were permitted, is that only one of Meredith's phones was left on - the English phone. This is also the phone on which the odd series of calls were made. So what I think happened is that the murderer tried to switch that phone off, and that this explains the aborted calls, as he struggled to figure out how to do it. The reason I don't think he was able to manage it is that he couldn't read the English menu, and was forced in the end to dispose of that phone switched on. He had no such trouble with the Italian phone, which he switched off.

Except that in every cell phone I've seen you don't need to access the menu to turn the phone off or on. The On/Off button is usually red (or more accurately orange). It will also have icon such as a circle with a line through it or something similar. Typically, this button is located on a prominent place on the face of the phone regardless of the style (e.g., flip, slider, twist, candybar, etc).

 

[Dan O.]

Are you certain that the key would also operate the spring latch (if the spring latch were not jammed open)? And if you are certain, how are you certain? The two locks (the lever-operated spring latch and the key-operated cylinder deadbolt) look to be independent of each other.

I am virtually certain that the latches would be linked. The mortise unit is a single piece (though the strike plates may be separate). As has been pointed out earlier, if the latches were not linked the lock set would be unusable since the spring latch could not be opened from the outside. If that were the case, the installer would have removed the spring latch instead of jamming it open.

As Katy asked, the pull in the outside center of the door could be mechanically linked to the latch but this would be extremely difficult requiring a long bore through the solid door and a way of installing the knob on one side of the door only and the standard latch mechanisms aren't designed to be linked that way.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Filomena believed she had closed the shutters, but wasn't certain. Even if she had, they did not close all the way and could not be latched.

This problem with the shutters would have been clearly visible to Rudy when he visited the cottage on earlier occasions.

AGAIN, I refer you to the Massei Report (fourth time now).

Micheli did not hear Filomena. She was not cross examined.

Finally, 'what' Filomena ACTUALLY said, was that she couldn't remember if she had LATCHED the shutters, not whether she had closed them or not. She made it very clear that she WAS certain that she had closed the shutters.

 

[Fulcanelli]

It's not "hunting for items of personal value" which causes fear. It's the possibility of either being spotted by a passer-by while scaling the wall/climbing through the window, or the possibility of being confronted by an unexpected occupant once inside, which causes fear: primarily a fear of being sent to prison (for the first time in this case), getting a criminal record (for the first time in this case) and suffering loss of status/support among family (although seemingly not for the first time in this case).

The very reasons why it's completely ridiculous to suggest he attempted to climb to that window in the first place.

Especially when there was a perfectly easy and hidden kitchen window to enter through...the window that REAL intruders broke through into the cottage twice.

 

[Mrs.Columbo]

Not to mention the fact that some of the more important incriminating DNA evidence came from within a messed-up pile of dusty clothes and debris, some six-and-a-half weeks after the crime.

yes, also like Rudy's DNA on Merediths handbag and his Y-haplotype on the zipped jacket.

 

[LondonJohn]

Well. It seems that those who confidently predicted that Sollecito would "drop" Knox at the appeal stage, and tell "the truth" in order to save himself, aren't perhaps as perceptive as they thought they were..... Who'd 'a' thunk it?

 

[LondonJohn]

yes, also like Rudy's DNA on Merediths handbag and his Y-haplotype on the zipped jacket.

Absolutely. I'm not arguing that these are necessarily valid pieces of evidence either. They may or may not be. It's up to the prosecution to prove that they were handled in accordance with proper protocol and procedures, and in a timely and professional fashion.

 

[katy_did]

Except that in every cell phone I've seen you don't need to access the menu to turn the phone off or on. The On/Off button is usually red (or more accurately orange). It will also have icon such as a circle with a line through it or something similar. Typically, this button is located on a prominent place on the face of the phone regardless of the style (e.g., flip, slider, twist, candybar, etc).

In terms of accessing the menu, I think the issue would be more that he wouldn't be able to tell what he was doing as the buttons were being pressed than that he'd have to access the menu in order to turn it off. It's just very difficult to navigate a phone in general when you don't understand the menu. Rudy would've been limited to pressing buttons at random, without any clear idea as to what they were doing. It's notable that the three calls that were made could all have been made with one or at most two keystrokes, no need to go into the menu of the phone at all.

As for the on/off switch, this is another factor which I think supports the idea that someone unfamiliar with the phone was the one to make the calls. Meredith's English phone was a Sony Ericsson, a brand on which the on/off switch is usually on the keypad of the phone rather than the top of it, and not very clearly marked. I have a Sony, and the power button is the same one as the cancel call button. The power symbol is very small, not coloured, and doesn't light up (it's not visible at all in dim lighting). You also have to hold down the button for longer than on other phones I've had. Being more used to Nokia, when I got my current phone I found it pretty counter-intuitive to use. Figuring out how to turn it off would be tricky for someone not used to the brand.

Meredith's Italian phone was a Motorola, on which the power button is usually at the top of the phone, in the same style as Nokia phones. IIRC Mary H said a while back that the phone the police confiscated from Rudy was a Nokia (though I'm not sure of the source for that).

ETA: Ah OK, I just noticed Christiana on PMF mentions Meredith's phone was a Sony Ericsson K700i, which apparently is designed differently, with the on/off switch at the top. Fair enough, thanks to her for that info.

 

[Dan O.]

Google has probably butchered this part of the translation from Micheli...

As for the window, remember to have certainly closed the windows but leaving the dark probably open: the shutters Although not a hundred percent sure, thought to have them shut, but without anchoring both, since the charge left met resistance on the sill due to a swelling of the wood.​

Perhaps someone will post the one true translation from PMF.