Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Dan O.]

That said, I can't find any way to excuse investigators who had access to the scene and claimed that it was impossible to climb in that window. They weren't trying to form judgments based on carefully chosen photos, so it would have been immediately obvious to them that the window was accessible from two directions.

They also said that there were no marks on the wall and specifically noting the nail that was undisturbed. What baffles me is how they could see the nail and miss this:

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

That said, I can't find any way to excuse investigators who had access to the scene and claimed that it was impossible to climb in that window. They weren't trying to form judgments based on carefully chosen photos, so it would have been immediately obvious to them that the window was accessible from two directions.

I keep hearing this, and with the possible exception of a rare instance of overenthusiastic hyperbole from someone posting on boards like this I have only seen this sort of claim as a classic 'straw-man' fabrication made by Knox defenders.

If you are using "impossible" as a synonym for "unlikely" or "extremely difficult", or if you are leaving out some additional qualifiers about leaving some other trace of climbing through, please say so. Otherwise a cite with context documenting investigators making the claim it is simply "impossible" would be in order.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

This is the extended quote on time of death from Matteini's ruling, part of which was posted by Rose earlier:

What's most striking is how much importance Matteini places on the stomach contents as a means of estimating time of death, moving it back an hour based on the fact the meal was over before 9. Lalli's first estimate of 23:00 was obviously based heavily on the stomach contents too, since at the time he believed the meal started at 21:00.

I think the length of time between the injuries being made and death occurring was revised during the trial to 10-15 minutes, where Matteini estimates 30 minutes in moving the estimated time of the attack back to about 21:30. 10-15 minutes would still lead to an estimated time for the fatal wounds being made of about 21:45, though, +/- an hour.

Guilter: "That's because Matteini wasn't a pathologist! Stomach evidence is worthless, we've proved it. This has been completely settled. I can't believe the colossal arrogance and stupidity of Matteini in trying to establish the time of death using stomach evidence. Surely Matteini is one of the dumbest people who has ever lived. Anyone with access to Google can prove using only some lecture notes and an abstract from a paper they haven't even read that stomachs behave entirely randomly".

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I keep hearing this, and with the possible exception of a rare instance of overenthusiastic hyperbole from someone posting on boards like this I have only seen this sort of claim as a classic 'straw-man' fabrication made by Knox defenders.

If you are using "impossible" as a synonym for "unlikely" or "extremely difficult", or if you are leaving out some additional qualifiers about leaving some other trace of climbing through, please say so. Otherwise a cite with context documenting investigators making the claim it is simply "impossible" would be in order.

The translated Massei report describes it as "totally unlikely", an interesting construction that implies certainty while leaving an escape hatch.

Quote in context, my bolding:

The "climber" (the window in Romanelli's room is located at a height of more than three and a half metres from the ground underneath, cf. photo 11 from the relevant dossier) would also need to rely on the fact that the shutters were not actually latched, and also that the ‚scuri‛ ,which are the wooden panels [scuri=non-louvered shutters in interior of room] that usually constitute the outer side (or the inner, depending on the point of view) of the window [attached to the outer edge of the inner side of the window- frame] had not been fastened to the window-frame to which the broken pane was attached; otherwise it would not have been possible to open them from the outside; nor would it have been possible, even breaking the glass, to make a hole giving access to the house, [37] since if these inner panels had been closed, they would have continued to provide an adequate obstacle to the possibility of opening the window, in spite of the broken pane.
Admitting that the climber decided to bet, in a sense, on the presence of both of these "favourable" - in fact, indispensable - conditions, the climber would then have had to climb up once, from underneath the window of Romanelli's room, in order to open the shutters; then he would have had to get the large rock, and having selected the point where he wanted to break the window, to throw it (it seems impossible to accept that he actually made the climb while carrying the large rock, and threw it against the window at the risk of being hit by glass falling from the pane thus shattered).

He would then have to have returned underneath Romanelli's window for the second climb, and through the broken glass, open the window (balanced on his knees or feet on the outside part of the windowsill) otherwise he would not have been able to pass his arm through the hole in the glass made by the stone) and reach up to the latch that fastened the window casements, necessarily latched since otherwise, if the casements had not been latched, it would not have been necessary to throw a rock at all, but just to open the shutters and climb inside.
This scenario appears totally unlikely, given the effort involved (going twice underneath the window, going up to throw the stone, scaling the wall twice) and taking into account the uncertainty of success (having to count on the two favourable circumstances indicated above), with a repetition of movements and behaviours, all of which could easily be seen by anyone who happened to be passing by on the street or actually coming into the house.

As far as marks go, I have to refer to you to the post by Dan O. immediately preceding yours. While I'm not an expert it certainly looks to me like there are holes in that wall with fresh brickwork exposed which might be compatible with someone knocking a nail or two out of the wall as they scrambled up, and two scuff marks which might be compatible with someone in sports shoes climbing the wall using the sill for a handhold.

The injusticeinperugia site linked recently also shows what could well be a similar scrubbing mark on the very top of the lower window.

Yet Massei opines:

The double climb necessary to attain the height of three and a half metres would have left some kind of trace or imprint on the wall, especially on the points on the wall that the "climber" would have used to support his feet, all the more as both the witnesses Romanelli and Marco Zaroli gave statements indicating that the earth, on that early November evening, must have been very wet (declarations of Marco Zaroli, hearing of February 6, 2009, p. 174, and declarations of Filomena Romanelli, hearing of July 7, 2009 p. 24; see also the document acquired at the hearing of March 28, 2009 concerning the fact that on October 30, 2007, it was raining). In fact, there are no visible signs on the wall, and furthermore, it can be observed that the nail - this was noted by this Court of Assizes during the inspection - remained where it was: it seems very unlikely that the climber, given the position of that nail and its characteristics, visible in the photo 11, did not somehow "encounter" that nail and force it, inadvertently or by using it as a foothold, causing it to fall or at least bend it.

You could argue with hindsight, I suppose, that Massei was quite correct in that some trace or imprint would have been left by a climber, and merely incorrect on the factual matter of whether traces were left. However if you read the report in isolation you'd certainly conclude that it was "totally unlikely" or impossible for someone to have entered the building by the window because no traces were left.

At the very least, Massei presumably thought that it had been proven beyond reasonable doubt that nobody got in that way.

 

[Chris C]

It's up to you whether you choose to engage in Italy-bashing, although if you do so hopefully you are from a country that has never seen a corrupt cop or a runaway prosecution.

However you're not representing my views if you do so.

I agree with you Kevin. I'm from a State, that has a bad reputation for rail roading people.

 

[RoseMontague]

This is the extended quote on time of death from Matteini's ruling, part of which was posted by Rose earlier:

Quote:
From the first medical assessments carried out on the body, the Coroner of the P.M., Dr. Luca Lalli, noted that the death could be placed at 23.00 with a minimum and maximum margin of about 1 hour, with the consequence that the temporal arc to be taken into consideration must be indicated as between the hours of 22.00 and 24.00 on 1 November 2007. In reality, from the documents it appears that this hour can definitely be placed earlier in that, according to what was reported by Sophie Purton on 2.11.2007, at 21.00 the meal had already finished as she and Meredith were already on the street and returning to their respective homes.

This fact is not of minor importance in that it allows us to move back the hour of death at least to 22.00, with the indication, therefore, of a temporal arc of between 21.00 and 23.00. [i.e. 22.00 with a margin of error of an hour either side]
[...]
From the reading of a first detailed summary written by Dr. Lalli and deposited with the Prosecutor on 8.11.2007, the subject of which is the autopsy findings on the body of Meredith Kercher, it emerges that the injuries did not affect the carotid artery, meaning death would have been preceded by quite a long agony. This is a fact which allows us to place the criminal acts further back in time to between the hours of 21.30 and 23.30 of 1 November 2007, a time span which can be moved back to between 20.30 and 22.30, if one takes account of the consumption of the meal at an hour earlier than 21.00.

What's most striking is how much importance Matteini places on the stomach contents as a means of estimating time of death, moving it back an hour based on the fact the meal was over before 9. Lalli's first estimate of 23:00 was obviously based heavily on the stomach contents too, since at the time he believed the meal started at 21:00.

I think the length of time between the injuries being made and death occurring was revised during the trial to 10-15 minutes, where Matteini estimates 30 minutes in moving the estimated time of the attack back to about 21:30. 10-15 minutes would still lead to an estimated time for the fatal wounds being made of about 21:45, though, +/- an hour.

Thank you for the translation and the insight, katy_did. I think both you and Kevin have made excellent points.

 

[RoseMontague]

I agree with you Kevin. I'm from a State, that has a bad reputation for rail roading people.

If you had a case where a college student from another country was arrested and convicted in your state in a rather obvious case of railroading, would you take offense at those people in that country trash talking your local justice system?

My guess would be probably not.

A poster at IIP posted a quote regarding how the people of Italy view their justice system and it is not good. Yet all I am hearing now is how we are trashing their great system and how we are offending them and hurting their feelings. It does not make sense to me.

 

[katy_did]

If you had a case where a college student from another country was arrested and convicted in your state in a rather obvious case of railroading, would you take offense at those people in that country trash talking your local justice system?

My guess would be probably not.

A poster at IIP posted a quote regarding how the people of Italy view their justice system and it is not good. Yet all I am hearing now is how we are trashing their great system and how we are offending them and hurting their feelings. It does not make sense to me.

I agree with you, in that I don't think there's anything wrong with criticizing aspects of a country's judicial system, and find the claims that this somehow insults Italians as a group very odd. I think it's shocking that suspects can be held for a year in Italy without being charged (someone earlier in the thread mentioned that in the UK there was a lot of controversy over suspected terrorists being held for only 60 days without charge). The lack of separation between the prosecutor and the police is worrying, in that there aren't really any safeguards to prevent an overzealous prosecutor going off on crazy tangents and taking everyone else with him. And the lack of any laws preventing deeply prejudicial press coverage - not to mention the fact most of that coverage originates from leaks from the prosecutor's office - is very disturbing. I'm guessing many Italians would be equally concerned about those things.

On the other hand, there's a difference between criticizing those things and criticizing Italy or Italians as a group, especially since many Italians would probably agree with those criticisms anyway. So I'd draw a distinction there (which would probably include references to Mussolini, LOL).

 

[katy_did]

Guilter: "That's because Matteini wasn't a pathologist! Stomach evidence is worthless, we've proved it. This has been completely settled. I can't believe the colossal arrogance and stupidity of Matteini in trying to establish the time of death using stomach evidence. Surely Matteini is one of the dumbest people who has ever lived. Anyone with access to Google can prove using only some lecture notes and an abstract from a paper they haven't even read that stomachs behave entirely randomly".

I think you might have hit the nail on the head there.

 

[LondonJohn]

I think you might have hit the nail on the head there.

With a tiny hammer?

 

[Chris C]

If you had a case where a college student from another country was arrested and convicted in your state in a rather obvious case of railroading, would you take offense at those people in that country trash talking your local justice system?

My guess would be probably not.

A poster at IIP posted a quote regarding how the people of Italy view their justice system and it is not good. Yet all I am hearing now is how we are trashing their great system and how we are offending them and hurting their feelings. It does not make sense to me.

Im from Mississippi, we dont like our justice system. Heck, its more corrupt than what people think about Perugia's.

 

[quadraginta]

The translated Massei report describes it as "totally unlikely", an interesting construction that implies certainty while leaving an escape hatch.

Quote in context, my bolding:



As far as marks go, I have to refer to you to the post by Dan O. immediately preceding yours. While I'm not an expert it certainly looks to me like there are holes in that wall with fresh brickwork exposed which might be compatible with someone knocking a nail or two out of the wall as they scrambled up, and two scuff marks which might be compatible with someone in sports shoes climbing the wall using the sill for a handhold.

The injusticeinperugia site linked recently also shows what could well be a similar scrubbing mark on the very top of the lower window.

Yet Massei opines:



You could argue with hindsight, I suppose, that Massei was quite correct in that some trace or imprint would have been left by a climber, and merely incorrect on the factual matter of whether traces were left. However if you read the report in isolation you'd certainly conclude that it was "totally unlikely" or impossible for someone to have entered the building by the window because no traces were left.

At the very least, Massei presumably thought that it had been proven beyond reasonable doubt that nobody got in that way.

So you are suggesting that "impossible to climb through that window" and "this scenario appears totally unlikely" are synonymous statements. I disagree. I don't even think they address the same thing. Reduced simply to the word "impossible" and the phrase "totally unlikely" then, yes, there is room to make a comparison. It requires completely discarding all of the context surrounding both statements, but with sufficient cherry-picking it can be done.

Dan_O's pictures were unconvincing. Perhaps irrelevant might be a better word. Those didn't look like scuff marks to me. I would expect such blemishes to be found anywhere on a wall like that. I would expect marks that were clearly scuff marks from shoes to be apparent to an inspection of the wall the day after the crime was committed.

I haven't really been particularly enamored of the nail argument to begin with. I could easily see that nail being missed in the dark, and can acknowledge that it may just have been bypassed. I have a lot more trouble with the glass on the sill. I believe it is "totally unlikely" that anyone climbed through that window without disturbing the glass we see remaining in the pictures we've viewed. In fact the very idea is so comically outrageous that I haven't bothered to comment on it. Only someone desperate to fabricate an explanation would even attempt to suggest such a thing.

I noted with some interest that Dan_O's calibrated photograph analysis of the width of that window was within an inch or so of my eyeball estimate. Do you really think that an adult male could climb through a second story window and only contact sixteen inches of the sill? Do you think that he would even bother to try?

I don't. Someone who was intent on a B&E and had already smashed the window to gain entry wouldn't be fussy about how they climbed through, they would have been methodical, and the very first thing they would have done is sweep that window sill clear of broken glass. There would not have been just a few small shards of glass from the rock on the ground below the window. There would have been a pile of glass on the ground below that sill. And almost none on it.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

I just looked through all the pics I have which are admittedly not all that many. I was looking for a possible photo showing that wall pre-murder. I have a few of the various girls but you cannot see that side of the cottage at all. I wonder if someone with a more extensive gallery than mine might have a picture including that wall from before the crime.

 

[katy_did]

With a tiny hammer?

If it was a very tiny nail.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

You have absolutely no way of knowing whether someone really read what they posted or not. Perhaps s/he misunderstood something. Perhaps s/he is not as intelligent as you seem to be (or think you are.)

I do actually. Firstly I asked them both. Trigood admitted he hadn't read it and Sherlock ignored the question and stopped posting for a while until the heat died down. Secondly if they had read the article they'd have read the discussion section, which explicitly discusses the fact that in circumstances like the Kercher murder stomach contents can be used to rule out certain times of death with a high degree of confidence. So I don't think I'm being unreasonable in concluding that they didn't read the paper they cited.

What is it you want Kevin? Your condescending, insulting, flat-out rude nastiposts will just result in posters like me and Solange and others leaving the thread altogether. Then you can sit around and reply to each other about how right you all are. That will result in a real challenging and entertaining thread.

I would indeed like you to challenge and entertain us with a fact-based response to the issues with the Massei's narrative's time of death, and the conclusions we should draw if it turns out that Massei's time of death is wrong and Meredith's actual time of death is incompatible with Amanda and Raffaele murdering her.

However none of you seem willing and able to do that. I would love to see that change, but until it does the degree of challenge and entertainment in this thread appears unlikely to be different to a discernible degree whether you take your leave or not.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

So you are suggesting that "impossible to climb through that window" and "this scenario appears totally unlikely" are synonymous statements. I disagree. I don't even think they address the same thing. Reduced simply to the word "impossible" and the phrase "totally unlikely" then, yes, there is room to make a comparison. It requires completely discarding all of the context surrounding both statements, but with sufficient cherry-picking it can be done.

Dan_O's pictures were unconvincing. Perhaps irrelevant might be a better word. Those didn't look like scuff marks to me. I would expect such blemishes to be found anywhere on a wall like that. I would expect marks that were clearly scuff marks from shoes to be apparent to an inspection of the wall the day after the crime was committed.

I haven't really been particularly enamored of the nail argument to begin with. I could easily see that nail being missed in the dark, and can acknowledge that it may just have been bypassed. I have a lot more trouble with the glass on the sill. I believe it is "totally unlikely" that anyone climbed through that window without disturbing the glass we see remaining in the pictures we've viewed. In fact the very idea is so comically outrageous that I haven't bothered to comment on it. Only someone desperate to fabricate an explanation would even attempt to suggest such a thing.

Did you read the in-depth discussion of this very issue, with relevant photographs, which was recently linked?

The prosecution assumes, for some reason, that all the damage to the window and all of the glass redistribution was done by the initial rock. You assume, for some reason, that Rudy climbed through the hole in the window. Both of these assumptions are pretty far out there.

A more plausible story is that Rudy crouched on the ledge to pull out fragments of glass from the top and bottom of the hole and placed them on the sill. Then having enlarged the hole he reached in, pulled the bolt and opened the window.

I noted with some interest that Dan_O's calibrated photograph analysis of the width of that window was within an inch or so of my eyeball estimate. Do you really think that an adult male could climb through a second story window and only contact sixteen inches of the sill? Do you think that he would even bother to try?

As stated I believe these assumptions to be incorrect.

I don't. Someone who was intent on a B&E and had already smashed the window to gain entry wouldn't be fussy about how they climbed through, they would have been methodical, and the very first thing they would have done is sweep that window sill clear of broken glass. There would not have been just a few small shards of glass from the rock on the ground below the window. There would have been a pile of glass on the ground below that sill. And almost none on it.

Now you are asserting things as fact which you have absolutely no basis for. Prove me wrong with a relevant citation if you can, but I think you are just making things up as it suits you.

 

[RoseMontague]

So you are suggesting that "impossible to climb through that window" and "this scenario appears totally unlikely" are synonymous statements. I disagree. I don't even think they address the same thing. Reduced simply to the word "impossible" and the phrase "totally unlikely" then, yes, there is room to make a comparison. It requires completely discarding all of the context surrounding both statements, but with sufficient cherry-picking it can be done.

Dan_O's pictures were unconvincing. Perhaps irrelevant might be a better word. Those didn't look like scuff marks to me. I would expect such blemishes to be found anywhere on a wall like that. I would expect marks that were clearly scuff marks from shoes to be apparent to an inspection of the wall the day after the crime was committed.

I haven't really been particularly enamored of the nail argument to begin with. I could easily see that nail being missed in the dark, and can acknowledge that it may just have been bypassed. I have a lot more trouble with the glass on the sill. I believe it is "totally unlikely" that anyone climbed through that window without disturbing the glass we see remaining in the pictures we've viewed. In fact the very idea is so comically outrageous that I haven't bothered to comment on it. Only someone desperate to fabricate an explanation would even attempt to suggest such a thing.

I noted with some interest that Dan_O's calibrated photograph analysis of the width of that window was within an inch or so of my eyeball estimate. Do you really think that an adult male could climb through a second story window and only contact sixteen inches of the sill? Do you think that he would even bother to try?

I don't. Someone who was intent on a B&E and had already smashed the window to gain entry wouldn't be fussy about how they climbed through, they would have been methodical, and the very first thing they would have done is sweep that window sill clear of broken glass. There would not have been just a few small shards of glass from the rock on the ground below the window. There would have been a pile of glass on the ground below that sill. And almost none on it.

The glass remaining on the sill is still a big question for me as well. Mary has suggested he stepped in after crossing over from the planter using the top of the open shutter as a handhold. PMF has a good picture of this with people around to provide perspective. This only works for me if the force of the rock opened the interior window and shutters as well, just as was demonstrated in that video demonstration that was shown in court. Otherwise he would have had to deal with the latch which would have been very difficult coming from the side and standing up. What is good about this picture is it shows the size of the planters in relation to the people around (see the other planters in the front left of the pic) and the width of the planter looks to me about the width needed to cross to the window. Does someone have a good pic of the latch showing how hard or difficult this might be or any signs of having been forced?

http://video.sky.it/?videoID=28470121001#video

 

[Justinian2]

It's up to you whether you choose to engage in Italy-bashing, although if you do so hopefully you are from a country that has never seen a corrupt cop or a runaway prosecution.

However you're not representing my views if you do so.

I sent nobody to jail. I squandered the time of nobody. I didn't cost a family a million dollars to free their innocent daughter. No news agencies spent thousands of man hours to cover this.

I have a book on tyrants. Guess what nation leads the list? What I said was true.

I bash the American government all the time even though most other governments are worse.

I am apalled at Italy over this! I am expressing my contempt for this verdict. Am I not suposed to express my emotion in a controlled manner?

I am NOT a goodie-goodie! Furthermore, I hate hypocrites.

The gist of my comment was factual and very important. You missed the mountain and commented on the molehill.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I sent nobody to jail. I squandered the time of nobody. I didn't cost a family a million dollars to free their innocent daughter. No news agencies spent thousands of man hours to cover this.

I have a book on tyrants. Guess what nation leads the list? What I said was true.

I bash the American government all the time even though most other governments are worse.

I am apalled at Italy over this! I am expressing my contempt for this verdict. Am I not suposed to express my emotion in a controlled manner?

I am NOT a goodie-goodie! Furthermore, I hate hypocrites.

The gist of my comment was factual and very important. You missed the mountain and commented on the molehill.

As I said earlier, it's your choice how you express yourself. You can say whatever you want.

However attacking an entire nation based on snippets of history and a single court case strikes me as irrational. You can express your contempt with the Kercher verdict without irrationally generalising that contempt to the entire nation just because you know almost nothing else about Italy.

Mind you it's not a matter of huge concern to me what you think on this issue. I mention it mostly so that a certain subset of the guilters don't have a legitimate basis to pretend that those who believe Knox is innocent only do so because they have it in for Italy.

I'd also prefer not to see the thread dragged into a tiresome and irrelevant round of "Boo Italy!"/"Yay Italy!", which would only be a distraction from the relevant facts of the case.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Also since it seems to be getting lost, here's the link to IJP's excellent discussion of the wall and window evidence with plenty of photographs showing how Rudy could have gotten in and left the evidence we have seen behind him:

Linky.

The first page has photos that clearly show how the bolt on the widow operates, and the sections of broken window that appear to be consistent with someone enlarging the hole in the window (and putting the broken pieces on the sill) to get at the bolt safely. Quadraginta in particular should have a good read through it.