Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Justinian2]

Page 365 of the Massei translation

Amanda and Raffaele, having arrived at the house slightly after 23.00 pm, it should It should be considered that they went into Amanda’s room with the intention of being together, in intimacy. Amanda moreover had reported that that evening they had they had “made love”, although in Raffaele’s house, after having consumed drugs (hashish) prepared by Raffaele Sollecito. Besides, as Laura Mezzetti had testified, …

Note that the Massei report virtually admits that AK and RS could not have arrived before 23:00. The rest appears to be mere conjecture, if not prosecutorial libel with million dollar damages.

Page 368

The consultants and forensic scientists have asserted that from the point of view of forensic science, it cannot be ruled out that the author of the injuries could have been a single attacker, because the bruises and the wounds from a pointed and cutting weapon are not in themselves incompatible with the action of a single person. With regard to this, it is nevertheless observed that the contribution of each

Note the words “cannot be ruled out”. I cannot find any evidence throughout the Massei report that MK was held down or restrained by others during her murder. (I searched on the word held)

Page 368

A motive, therefore, of an erotic, sexually violent nature which, arising from the choice of evil made by Rudy, found active collaboration from Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

Again, the collaboration is speculation at the very least since the Massei report itself does not mention (let alone prove) collaboration before the concluding remarks. (I searched for the word collaboration)

Page 368

That such participation, active and violent, also involved the current defendants in combination with Rudy can be derived from what has been observed in earlier discussion of the wounds suffered by Meredith, of the outcome of the genetic investigations, [and] of the bare footprints found in various parts of the house.

This is a lie based on the preponderance of evidence in the Massie report that points to the wounds being inflicted by a single attacker. Also, the male footprints were proven to belong only to Guede.

This is an earlier post that contains some very important concepts, I believe. My trivial post was commented upon, but this was not.

The importance??? Searches on the words that would authenticate the conclusions of the Massie report are absent. There seems to be no basis in fact for the most significant conclusions of Massie. (Did my search miss something?)

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Page 365 of the Massei translation



Note that the Massei report virtually admits that AK and RS could not have arrived before 23:00. The rest appears to be mere conjecture, if not prosecutorial libel with million dollar damages.

I do tend to skip over this point, because merely falsifying the Massei narrative is less intellectually satisfying than showing that Amanda and Raffaele couldn't have done it under any possible alternative narrative.

However that may be a mistake on my part. It's worth emphasising that even if you take the lecture notes version of t(lag) in its most tenuous form and put the TOD as late as possible by that source (22:15 to 22:30) then that alone is enough to consign the Massei narrative to the rubbish bin, which immediately demonstrates that the conviction of Raffaele and Amanda on the basis of the Massei narrative was a miscarriage of justice.

That alone sinks the prosecution ship inescapably and permanently.

Focusing on the Naruto file and the evidence for a time of death in the 21:05-21:55 range is the cherry on top, which provides very strong reason to believe not just that the Massei narrative is a load of old cobblers, but that no remotely plausible alternative narrative could convict Raffaele and Amanda either.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

correcting links in previous message

To all,

The links in my comment to Stilicho earlier today (6624) are unintentionally all identical. I apologize for any confusion. I believe that I have corrected the problem below. Each comment number below should now corresponds to a different message, and the list is in reverse chronological order. My unanswered comments to Stilicho are as follows:

5070
4049
3809
3539
3426
3224
3221
3220
2543
2529
2351
2134
1989
1624
1098

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.)

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.

"You're right!"
"You got it!"
"That's exactly correct!"
"And another thing... you're right!"

Wow, I'm pages behind on my reading here due to work, so I decided to read the posts backwards, from most recent to oldest. This is the first post I've read of yours and I like the way you think, straight forward and right to the point with a little humour thrown in. I hope you do stay for a while, there are some really good posters on here with some really good ideas even if we all don't agree on most things, don't let the few bad ones deter you.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

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.

I can't think what I could possibly have said to lead you to draw that conclusion. You appear to be responding to some post wholly a part of your imagination.

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.

Frankly I don't care how he unlatched the window, although the image of him crouching on that six inch sill with the window closed is one that lends itself more to a Spiderman comic than anything someone could expect to see in real life. The idea that he did it on half of the sill is even more ludicrous.

Other Knox advocates here have even felt the same. Was it Charlie who argued so eloquently that Rudy could have reached through to the latch while standing on the grate of the window below? Was it you?

None of that changes the simple truth that someone trying to enter through that window would clear the sill. It isn't a complex operation. One swipe with a sleeve would suffice.

<snip>

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.

I'm asserting the obvious. No citation is required. Why would someone choose to crawl over broken glass when the work of an instant would remove it?

You're just being silly, or obfuscatory ... or both.

 

[Danceme]

The prosecution took the diary.

Has it then been proven the diaries were not leaked by the defense lawyers as was often reported at the time? It sounded a little strange but who knows.

"With the investigators' material painting such an unflattering picture of Knox and Sollecito—who say they have since broken up—their respective lawyers have now released the couple's own account of the events of the night of Nov. 1. These have come in the form of diaries compiled during their time in prison. Knox records her thoughts in English in a "Spider-Man 2" notebook titled in Italian "La Mia Prigione" (My Prison); Sollecito compiles his in a tightly written Italian text called "Notes on a Prison Journey."
http://www.newsweek.com/2008/01/16/prison-diaries.html

"Amanda Knox, one of the suspects in the killing of Meredith Kercher, has submitted hundreds of pages of her prison diary to investigators to try to clear her name."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/2185422/Amanda-Knoxs-prison-diary-leaked.html

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I can't think what I could possibly have said to lead you to draw that conclusion. You appear to be responding to some post wholly a part of your imagination.

I apologise - I did indeed misread you on that point.

Frankly I don't care how he unlatched the window, although the image of him crouching on that six inch sill with the window closed is one that lends itself more to a Spiderman comic than anything someone could expect to see in real life. The idea that he did it on half of the sill is even more ludicrous.

Other Knox advocates here have even felt the same. Was it Charlie who argued so eloquently that Rudy could have reached through to the latch while standing on the grate of the window below? Was it you?

I'm not sure I see where you are going here. Whether he was standing on the grate or the top of the window frame or on the sill when he removed the glass and opened the window doesn't seem to make much difference as far as I can see.

None of that changes the simple truth that someone trying to enter through that window would clear the sill. It isn't a complex operation. One swipe with a sleeve would suffice.

I'm asserting the obvious. No citation is required. Why would someone choose to crawl over broken glass when the work of an instant would remove it?

You're just being silly, or obfuscatory ... or both.

On the contrary, I'm pointing out that an argument from uninformed incredulity is a fallacy.

Guilters seem to think that expressing personal incredulity is a compelling argument, and that it's up to everyone else to prove beyond reasonable doubt that whatever they are being incredulous about now is in fact highly likely.

The fact that we can often do so, and do often do so, says more about the quality of guilter arguments from incredulity and the lack of anything else from guilters for us to talk about than it says about the intrinsic need to reply to such fallacious fluff.

Assuming that most of the glass went into the room when the rock went through the window, Rudy could well have chinned up to the mostly glass-free window sill, sat there (six inches is fine for this) while removing some more glass from the window and placing it on the sill, opened the window and entered. I see no reason why he would have decided he just had to make extra noise and get extra glass on himself sweeping the glass off the sill when he was done.

 

[quadraginta]

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.

I had a good read through it when the link to it was first posted here. I found it to be an unpersuasive advocacy piece consisting mostly of a re-hash of already proposed "could have happened"s or "couldn't have happened"s and a collection of unverifiable assumptions, along with the usual insinuations of incompetence on the part of Perugia LE.

I noted that all of the methods Mr. Hendry contemplated as a way to fabricate a break-in ...

Any and all theories for the rock being thrown from the inside are unrealistic when considering both the spray of glass on the floor and the recent impact to the inner wooden shutter.

... did not even include the idea that someone could stand in the room, open one side of the window, and swing a rock at the closed side. I can think of no perfect way to exclude the physics of this scenario from one of a thrown rock. This is not a complicated scenario for someone to conceive.

Mr. Hendry's effort had a very scholarly tone, but in spite of that lacked significant new content, and isn't even worth the bother of a disputation in detail. It is a prettied up collection of the same old arguments wrapped in authority image.

Boring, actually.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

On the contrary, I'm pointing out that an argument from uninformed incredulity is a fallacy.

Guilters seem to think that expressing personal incredulity is a compelling argument, and that it's up to everyone else to prove beyond reasonable doubt that whatever they are being incredulous about now is in fact highly likely.

The fact that we can often do so, and do often do so, says more about the quality of guilter arguments from incredulity and the lack of anything else from guilters for us to talk about than it says about the intrinsic need to reply to such fallacious fluff.

Gratuitous insults aside (and no, your use of the third person is not a convincing platform for denial, so don't bother) an argument from incredulity is not fallacious when the assertion in question is incredible. That is in the sense of "not credible" in case you were about get confused again.

It does not always require "expert opinion" and citations to draw a conclusion about the obvious. If someone tells me that water is not wet I do not need the services of a chemistry professor or the documentation of an encyclopedia to take issue with the statement.

Assuming that most of the glass went into the room when the rock went through the window, Rudy could well have chinned up to the mostly glass-free window sill, sat there (six inches is fine for this) while removing some more glass from the window and placing it on the sill, opened the window and entered. I see no reason why he would have decided he just had to make extra noise and get extra glass on himself sweeping the glass off the sill when he was done.

Get a grip, man! By your account he just threw a damned rock through the window. Now you say he'd be worried about the sound of some falling glass?

Good grief.

And instead of sweeping the glass off of the sill with a simple sideways motion of his arm he chooses instead to take the time to gently place it to one side so as not to "get extra glass on himself" and crawls over it.

Give

Me

A

Break.

And you wonder where the incredulity comes from?

Sheesh.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I had a good read through it when the link to it was first posted here. I found it to be an unpersuasive advocacy piece consisting mostly of a re-hash of already proposed "could have happened"s or "couldn't have happened"s and a collection of unverifiable assumptions, along with the usual insinuations of incompetence on the part of Perugia LE.

Dismissing this as "boring" strikes me as somewhat disingenuous. If it's "boring" to explain in detail how a lone intruder could have broken in using no extraordinary feats or actions, leaving more or less exactly the evidence we now have and thus disproving Massei's assertions about the matter, then what could possibly be "interesting"?

It's all the defence needs to do. If it's done, there is nothing more to do on that front.

I noted that all of the methods Mr. Hendry contemplated as a way to fabricate a break-in ...

... did not even include the idea that someone could stand in the room, open one side of the window, and swing a rock at the closed side. I can think of no perfect way to exclude the physics of this scenario from one of a thrown rock. This is not a complicated scenario for someone to conceive.

I can't argue with that. However it's the prosecution's job to prove that such a thing happened, not the defence's job to prove that such a thing is impossible.

If there's no decent evidence of a staged break-in, then another major plank of the Massei narrative is destroyed. Any break-in could be staged. It's Massei's assertion that it was staged and that there is evidence to make it "totally unlikely" that a lone intruder entered the house by that window.

 

[quadraginta]

Dismissing this as "boring" strikes me as somewhat disingenuous.

<snip>

It was boring because there was nothing new there. Wrapping up the same old 'same old' in a different wrapper doesn't makes the package contents any less tiring.

What is disingenuous about that?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Gratuitous insults aside (and no, your use of the third person is not a convincing platform for denial, so don't bother) an argument from incredulity is not fallacious when the assertion in question is incredible. That is in the sense of "not credible" in case you were about get confused again.

It does not always require "expert opinion" and citations to draw a conclusion about the obvious. If someone tells me that water is not wet I do not need the services of a chemistry professor or the documentation of an encyclopedia to take issue with the statement.

It is a very strange argument to say that because we can agree that "water is wet" without a citation, it's therefore open slather to make assertions like "it can be divined through pure reason from one's armchair that all housebreakers in this situation would sweep glass from the sill to the ground" without needing any evidence at all.

I think you should just accept that "water is wet" and "it can be divined through pure reason from one's armchair that all housebreakers in this situation would sweep glass from the sill to the ground" are not analogous and move on.

However if this is an acceptable argumentative move, here is my rebuttal to the entire Massei/Mignini corpus: Water is wet. I think their case is ridiculous. Therefore it is. I need no evidence but my own incredulity. Ta-dah! I'll accept your argument from incredulity if you accept mine, but not otherwise.

Get a grip, man! By your account he just threw a damned rock through the window. Now you say he'd be worried about the sound of some falling glass?

Good grief.

Well hell, if further noise makes no difference after you've chucked a rock through a window, why not wander around the house after you have broken in yelling "I'M ROBBING THIS PLACE! HOODY-HOO! FREE STUFF!".

It is really an incredible idea to you that burglars might want to make the minimum amount of noise consistent with breaking in, just in case someone wanders past after they have thrown the rock but before they are inside the house? He was right next to a street after all, why push his luck?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

It was boring because there was nothing new there. Wrapping up the same old 'same old' in a different wrapper doesn't makes the package contents any less tiring.

What is disingenuous about that?

I repeat the question: If a demonstration that the Massei narrative is false with regard to the evidence for a staged break-in is "boring", what could possibly be "interesting"? The defence's job is complete and we can move on, unless you have something more than you have already shared with is to cast doubt on the defence narrative.

 

[JREF2010]

If he climbed in by using the lower window, why wouldn't the burglar enter the side of the window that doesn't have glass there? The burglar opens the latch through the hole, pushing both windows inward, and then climbs in through the other side avoiding the glass on the sill. maybe?

To me the attraction to Filomenas room would be the shutters that were not able to close fully. This could be similar to a garage door not fully closed, the type of thing burglars look for.

Also, if the glass breaking would have been a loud noise Nara would have heard it probably.

 

[Danceme]

I had a good read through it when the link to it was first posted here. I found it to be an unpersuasive advocacy piece consisting mostly of a re-hash of already proposed "could have happened"s or "couldn't have happened"s and a collection of unverifiable assumptions, along with the usual insinuations of incompetence on the part of Perugia LE.

I noted that all of the methods Mr. Hendry contemplated as a way to fabricate a break-in ...



... did not even include the idea that someone could stand in the room, open one side of the window, and swing a rock at the closed side. I can think of no perfect way to exclude the physics of this scenario from one of a thrown rock. This is not a complicated scenario for someone to conceive.

Mr. Hendry's effort had a very scholarly tone, but in spite of that lacked significant new content, and isn't even worth the bother of a disputation in detail. It is a prettied up collection of the same old arguments wrapped in authority image.

Boring, actually.
[/COLOR]

I agree. He also says this,

"The final resting position of the rock indicated that the person throwing the rock was located somewhat to the driveway entrance side instead of directly in front of the window. The small contact zone to the inside wooden shutter relative to the size of the rock inferred that the shutter was partially open when impacted by the large rock."

If Rudy was standing more on the driveway side rather than directly in front of or even to the left of the window there's no way the trajectory would allow the rock to hit the right innermost corner of the wood blind as it impacted, recessed as it is within the jamb. Is he even talking about the same shutter because to impact anywhere near where it did, being thrown from the driveway, it would have had to have been all the way open for one thing. In trying to explain the final resting place of the rock he posits a scenario that is pure nonsense.

 

[Chris C]

Has it then been proven the diaries were not leaked by the defense lawyers as was often reported at the time? It sounded a little strange but who knows.

"With the investigators' material painting such an unflattering picture of Knox and Sollecito—who say they have since broken up—their respective lawyers have now released the couple's own account of the events of the night of Nov. 1. These have come in the form of diaries compiled during their time in prison. Knox records her thoughts in English in a "Spider-Man 2" notebook titled in Italian "La Mia Prigione" (My Prison); Sollecito compiles his in a tightly written Italian text called "Notes on a Prison Journey."
http://www.newsweek.com/2008/01/16/prison-diaries.html

"Amanda Knox, one of the suspects in the killing of Meredith Kercher, has submitted hundreds of pages of her prison diary to investigators to try to clear her name."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/2185422/Amanda-Knoxs-prison-diary-leaked.html

I'm fairly sure Knox's side released some of the stuff that she wrote to the media. That stuff was authorized by the Knox defense to be released. However, the stuff that was leaked that I was referring to, was in the prosecution's possession. Such as, the diary she kept at the apartment, which the prosecusion seized during the investigation. The original diary knox started in prison that the prosecution also seized. Both of these where released by the prosecution to the public.

 

[Chris C]

I agree. He also says this,

"The final resting position of the rock indicated that the person throwing the rock was located somewhat to the driveway entrance side instead of directly in front of the window. The small contact zone to the inside wooden shutter relative to the size of the rock inferred that the shutter was partially open when impacted by the large rock."

If Rudy was standing more on the driveway side rather than directly in front of or even to the left of the window there's no way the trajectory would allow the rock to hit the right innermost corner of the wood blind as it impacted, recessed as it is within the jamb. Is he even talking about the same shutter because to impact anywhere near where it did, being thrown from the driveway, it would have had to have been all the way open for one thing. In trying to explain the final resting place of the rock he posits a scenario that is pure nonsense.

1st your assuming that the rock was perfectly round. All you have to do is watch an american football game and see what happens on a punt when the point of the football hits the ground. However, even if the rock was perfectly round there would be more than 1 point you could throw that rock from and it land where it landed. However, the main problem with determining the final resting point would be the angle of contact, velocity, rotational spin, weight of rock, weight of shudder, glass, and the resistance created from the contact spot on the inner shutter. As an example if you hit the inner shutter farthest from the hinges you create the least amount of resistance. If you hit it close to the hinge you would create the greatest amount of resistance. The only thing most likely not to happen about the final resting spot, is the rock shouldn't land land towards the portable closet.

The only thing known is the contact spot on the inner shutter. However, we dont know the resistance that would be created, because the investigators didn't believe it was a break in.

 

[Dan O.]

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.

That's exactly what I would expect if these were random variations in the surface on the wall. There is an easy scientific way to settle this. Scan the rest of the wall and find all such blemishes. Then compute the probability that such blemishes are correlated with being under the window where scuff marks would be caused by someone scrambling up the wall to enter through the window.

 

[quadraginta]

If he climbed in by using the lower window, why wouldn't the burglar enter the side of the window that doesn't have glass there? The burglar opens the latch through the hole, pushing both windows inward, and then climbs in through the other side avoiding the glass on the sill. maybe?

To me the attraction to Filomenas room would be the shutters that were not able to close fully. This could be similar to a garage door not fully closed, the type of thing burglars look for.

Also, if the glass breaking would have been a loud noise Nara would have heard it probably.

The one side of the window is about sixteen inches wide. It may sound plausible to you, somehow, that a normally sized adult male could easily negotiate over a space that wide during a second story break-in, but it doesn't to me. Sixteen inches isn't very much. For an average person it is less than the distance from their elbow to their fingertips. Sure, it could be done, but it would be far more difficult, and it would have to be done deliberately, and with great care.

More importantly, why would a burglar even bother. It would be infinitely easier just to brush the glass out of the way, and use the whole width of the window.

Efforts to portray it otherwise are transparent attempts at rationalization.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

The one side of the window is about sixteen inches wide. It may sound plausible to you, somehow, that a normally sized adult male could easily negotiate over a space that wide during a second story break-in, but it doesn't to me. Sixteen inches isn't very much. For an average person it is less than the distance from their elbow to their fingertips. Sure, it could be done, but it would be far more difficult, and it would have to be done deliberately, and with great care.

More importantly, why would a burglar even bother. It would be infinitely easier just to brush the glass out of the way, and use the whole width of the window.

Efforts to portray it otherwise are transparent attempts at rationalization.

You can assert this until you are blue in the face, but it isn't going to magically start making sense.

What evidence do you have that there was even enough glass on the outside of the sill to worry about when Rudy climbed up? The glass I can see in these photos looks mostly like larger chunks which have been deliberately removed and put down on the sill after the ascent, not glass that fell there when the rock was thrown through the window.

I'd expect most of the glass to go inwards, not outwards, when hit by a rock. So why should there be so much glass there that Rudy had to shovel large amounts of glass on to the ground below before ascending?