Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Fine]

That is an artful thesis, at least by Massei's standards, but it fails to account for the distribution of the glass on the floor. You need to add an element to the staging - they broke the glass with the window open, the inside shutter directly behind the window, and the outside shutters closed to prevent escaping glass. Then they took some of the broken glass on the floor and arranged it on Filomena's rug to look as though the shattering impact had come from the outside.
But in carrying out this ruse, they forgot to remove pieces of glass from the clothing which they had previously strewn about the room, as documented by the memories of Filomena and the police, but not by photos.

____________________

Well, here's a photo, from Bruce's site, showing the glass on the floor of Filomena's room....

Glass on the blue rug is what, three, four, five feet from the broken window? Why do you find it hard to imagine glass from the left glass pane being struck by the large rock, bouncing off the interior "shade" and landing and bouncing to their photographed location on the rug (and elsewhere on the floor)? How far the glass fragments fly depends on the speed the rock was thrown, plus many other factors. Okay, I've never myself simulated such an event, but I've dropped glass items on the floor, which broke, and fragments scattered just as far. So, under Massei's staging scenario.....I don't see the law of conservation of momentum violated here in Filomena's room. Or any other law of nature.

///

 

[katy_did]

I am the poster who writes as “Yummi” on Perugia Murder File.

I am not planning to interact much with most people here. Recently some posters addressed topics from the case which I usually deal with, some of my posts were also explicitly cited. It is possible that I will answer to some of those topics here. The name “Machiavelli” here is the only one to be identified as the poster “Yummi”. Disclaimer: I will never use those nicks anywhere else, never on other forums.

Hi Machiavelli, welcome. I've enjoyed reading your posts elsewhere, even if I don't always agree with them. Looking forward to reading your contributions.

 

[katy_did]

Perhaps someone so inclined might explain to me how Massei's reconstruction of the broken window accounts for the glass on the windowpane. If the panes were hanging open protruding into the room, with the interior shades behind them, then why wouldn't the broken glass follow the trajectory of the rock toward the closet, or straight down. Would this action really result in that much glass all over the sill?

This is one of the things that has me puzzled too. Basically Massei is trying to come up with a scenario which would account for signs of impact and a distribution of glass which would exactly mirror what would have happened had the rock been thrown from outside (whether at a distance or at close range, which I think is also a possibility). That's the reason for his need to come up with this slightly odd scenario in the first place. But it doesn't account for the glass on the outer sill, and the explanation for the mark on the inner shutter is dubious, too (if they were trying to simulate a rock thrown from outside, and given that the inner shutter was partially open anyway, wouldn't they just have moved it out the way?). Welcome to the thread, btw!

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

____________________

Well, here's a photo, from Bruce's site, showing the glass on the floor of Filomena's room....

[qimg]http://injusticeinperugia.com/hendry9.jpg[/qimg]

Glass on the blue rug is what, three, four, five feet from the broken window? Why do you find it hard to imagine glass from the left glass pane being struck by the large rock, bouncing off the interior "shade" and landing and bouncing to their photographed location on the rug (and elsewhere on the floor)? How far the glass fragments fly depends on the speed the rock was thrown, plus many other factors. Okay, I've never myself simulated such an event, but I've dropped glass items on the floor, which broke, and fragments scattered just as far. So, under Massei's staging scenario.....I don't see the law of conservation of momentum violated here in Filomena's room. Or any other law of nature.

///

Here is a better picture of the glass on the floor:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/filomena_floor.jpg

In my opinion, the pattern of the glass shows that the rock was pitched through the window from the outside. If it had been pitched from the inside, with the inside shutter behind it, most of the glass would have simply dropped to the floor. It wouldn't have sprayed all over the room.

Also, why would anyone stage it the way Massei suggests? Why not pitch the rock from outside?

This is just more speculative garbage, like the two-knife theory, the knife-in-purse theory, and the playing-with-phone theory.

 

[Chris C]

I just checked and there were two - one on a hair specimen and one on a presumed bloodstain, but both samples failed the quantification test, i.e., there was no DNA present.

So what your saying they found a presumed bloodstain. Kinda like finding luminol footprints. Except the bloodstain on the window fails the quantification test and the luminol doesn't. Hmmmm

 

[Chris C]

Perhaps someone so inclined might explain to me how Massei's reconstruction of the broken window accounts for the glass on the windowpane. If the panes were hanging open protruding into the room, with the interior shades behind them, then why wouldn't the broken glass follow the trajectory of the rock toward the closet, or straight down. Would this action really result in that much glass all over the sill?

See what you dont understand is according to the prosecution and judges the whole thing was staged. Everything. Every single piece of glass was put there by Knox/Sollecito to look like someone broke in through the window. If a meteor would have fell from the sky and crashed through the roof. They would have said Knox/Sollecito staged it.

 

[katy_did]

Therefore, that Knox and her boyfriend would have chosen it as an ostensible entry point is a very dubious proposition. And even more improbable because there seems to have been a door at the cottage that tended to became ajar on its own. That door would be the likely scapegoat if someone familiar with the cottage was trying to "stage" the scene.

Absolutely. Massei's reasoning on Knox and Sollecito's motive for staging a break-in is incredibly weak - entirely based on the premise Meredith herself wouldn't have let Guede in. He completely overlooks the fact that on the one hand, Guede was her boyfriend's friend, and on the other, she might not even have had a choice about it, if he'd forced his way in. Not to mention the faulty front door, the possibility Meredith could've briefly gone outside and Guede might've snuck in, and so on. Any of those scenarios are entirely plausible. So from Knox and Sollecito's perspective, why bother staging a break-in anyway, when there are so many other ways in which Guede could've gotten in the cottage?

People have suggested there's a more obvious window Guede could've have used, had he actually broken in. Well there are far more obvious methods Amanda and Raffaele could've used, if they'd wanted to make it look like a stranger was the culprit - things that only a resident of the cottage could've known, like the faulty front door.

 

[Chris C]

Here is a better picture of the glass on the floor:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/filomena_floor.jpg

In my opinion, the pattern of the glass shows that the rock was pitched through the window from the outside. If it had been pitched from the inside, with the inside shutter behind it, most of the glass would have simply dropped to the floor. It wouldn't have sprayed all over the room.

Also, why would anyone stage it the way Massei suggests? Why not pitch the rock from outside?

This is just more speculative garbage, like the two-knife theory, the knife-in-purse theory, and the playing-with-phone theory.

Dont forget the clean up theory, the knox was getting stoned and decided to help Rudy rape Meredith theory, the 3 way satanic sex game theory, the Manga theory, the bad reaction to smoking pot psychotic theory, the Meredith owed me Money theory, Knox hated Meredith theory,

 

[Chris C]

Absolutely. Massei's reasoning on Knox and Sollecito's motive for staging a break-in is incredibly weak - entirely based on the premise Meredith herself wouldn't have let Guede in. He completely overlooks the fact that on the one hand, Guede was her boyfriend's friend, and on the other, she might not even have had a choice about it, if he'd forced his way in. Not to mention the faulty front door, the possibility Meredith could've briefly gone outside and Guede might've snuck in, and so on. Any of those scenarios are entirely plausible. So from Knox and Sollecito's perspective, why bother staging a break-in anyway, when there are so many other ways in which Guede could've gotten in the cottage?

People have suggested there's a more obvious window Guede could've have used, had he actually broken in. Well there are far more obvious methods Amanda and Raffaele could've used, if they'd wanted to make it look like a stranger was the culprit - things that only a resident of the cottage could've known, like the faulty front door.

Sadly the thing everyone seems to forget is Guede admitted that he was downstairs at the other guys place. The guys were not home, however, you already have someone placing themselves outside that window the rock was thrown through.

 

[Dan O.]

... Then they took some of the broken glass on the floor and arranged it on Filomena's rug to look as though the shattering impact had come from the outside.

I think the one large piece of glass in the middle of the rug that is split into multiple pieces but still maintaining their proper orientation as if the glass continued to fracture imediatly after landing is the most artfully arranged.

Of course, credit should properly go to Fillomena who contributed to this bit of staging.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

It seems they also saw it in the video, the first theory that it formed the wounds on Meredith's hands does not make sense as it does not appear to be bloody at all and the second theory is that it got carried in there inadvertently by Amanda or Raffaele after they busted Filomena's window. Charlie's theory makes the most sense to me, the other theory about the busted bottle after a drunken orgy is silly as well. I didn't see anything showing they collected it or tested it. The thing about advancing theories like this is that if it was tested Massei should have said something about it supporting his theory (glass consistent with the window glass) and discounting the other theory (no blood on the glass).

Massei accepts that the glass is from the window. He theorizes on p. 381[410] that Amanda or Raffaele must have tracked it into the room after staging the break-in.

 

[Fine]

Here is a better picture of the glass on the floor:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/filomena_floor.jpg

In my opinion, the pattern of the glass shows that the rock was pitched through the window from the outside. If it had been pitched from the inside, with the inside shutter behind it, most of the glass would have simply dropped to the floor. It wouldn't have sprayed all over the room.

Also, why would anyone stage it the way Massei suggests? Why not pitch the rock from outside?
This is just more speculative garbage, like the two-knife theory, the knife-in-purse theory, and the playing-with-phone theory.

___________________-

I don't remember whether Massei mentioned it but the reason is pretty obvious. You close the exterior shutters to Filomena's room in order to minimize the noise broadcast to your neighbors. If instead, you go outside and throw the rock through the window, more noise is broadcast and you stand a chance of being seen. You've murdered someone. Why create a disturbance? Outside, you also stand a chance of missing your target.

///

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

___________________

Kevin, you've misunderstood Massei's reconstruction of the window breaking. You may wish to look at the photos on PMF or Bruce's site to aid in understanding the reconstruction. I've inserted one photo, below. I quote from the MOTIVATIONS report, English Translation, page 52:

I'm not completely sure we are on the same page, so just to clear this up:

My reading of Massei was that he was saying that the villains closed the outer shutters, mostly closed the glass window, mostly closed the inner shutters, and then pitched the rock so it went through the window, bounced off the outer shutters, went back through the space where the window pane was, hit the inner shutters, fell to the ground and was then manually picked up and dropped to as to land on the paper bag.

If I've got you right, your reading is that the setup was pretty much the same but rock was thrown at an angle to bounce off the outer shutters without hitting the window, bounce back in and through the window, hit the inner shutters and then fall to the floor to be manually moved.

Is that correct, or have I misinterpreted you?

 

[Fine]

I'm not completely sure we are on the same page, so just to clear this up:

My reading of Massei was that he was saying that the villains closed the outer shutters, mostly closed the glass window, mostly closed the inner shutters, and then pitched the rock so it went through the window, bounced off the outer shutters, went back through the space where the window pane was, hit the inner shutters, fell to the ground and was then manually picked up and dropped to as to land on the paper bag.

If I've got you right, your reading is that the setup was pretty much the same but rock was thrown at an angle to bounce off the outer shutters without hitting the window, bounce back in and through the window, hit the inner shutters and then fall to the floor to be manually moved.

Is that correct, or have I misinterpreted you?

________________

Kevin,

In the scenario sketched by Massei, on page 52 of the English Translation of the MOTIVATIONS report, the rock never comes into contact with the exterior shutters. At the time of the staging those shutters are closed. The interior shutters, or "shades," behind the panes of glass, are closed too. Both of the frames, or casements, holding the window glass are swung open, or partially open. So, as the staging begins, the situation is as depicted, below, except that the exterior shutters are closed and glass is not yet broken................

You the stager are situated pretty much where the camera is. Then you throw the rock through the glass pane, which breaks. The rock continues through the frame to strike the wood "shade" behind the glass pane, leaving a "scar." (See arrow.) The shade is NOT latched, so it swings open (on its own hinges) permitting the rock to continue on its trajectory, bouncing off the shade, then falling onto the floor, as glass is scattered on the floor.

Later, the stagers partially open the external shutters, and close both the interior "shades," leaving the situation similar to that seen in the above photograph.

///

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

You've murdered someone. Why create a disturbance?

??? This logic is utterly backward. Why kill someone in the first place if you're worried about the disturbance?

You're trying to say that Amanda and Raffaele were cautious and risk-averse, and yet arbitrarily, on a whim, with no possible motive, they decided to engage in the highest-risk activity possible, committing murder. Not only that, they accepted the additional risk of acting in concert with someone they hardly knew. They were willing to do a thrill killing with Rudy Guede, and then let him go off and do God knows what, or tell God knows who, but they didn't want to pitch a rock through a window because they might create a disturbance. Is that really what you believe?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Dont forget the clean up theory, the knox was getting stoned and decided to help Rudy rape Meredith theory, the 3 way satanic sex game theory, the Manga theory, the bad reaction to smoking pot psychotic theory, the Meredith owed me Money theory, Knox hated Meredith theory,

Massei's report is chock full of speculation that is arbitrary, improbable, and completely unsupported by factual evidence. For example, Massei concludes that Amanda called Meredith's phone to make sure it had not been found, and "once they had that reassurance (the phones not being answered by anyone), they could raise the alarm." Where is the logic in that? And if that was her thinking, why did she call one of Meredith's phones, and then call Filomena, and then call Meredith's other phone? Shouldn't she have checked both phones before calling Filomena, if she wanted to make sure they hadn't been found?

Massei's reasoning about the locked door and discarded phones is also contradictory and absurd. Here he explains why the phones were taken and the door was locked:

In particular, Amanda and Raffaele may have thought that Mezzetti or Romanelli or one of the young men from downstairs, particularly Giacomo Silenzi, who had a relationship with Meredith, might have returned to the house in the morning and if they had heard the telephone ring without being answered by Meredith, might have gone to check in the room and would have discovered what that room concealed. It was therefore necessary to take the mobile phones away and to throw them far away; it was also necessary to lock the door of Meredith’s room with the key in order to prevent someone, returning to the house, from calling Meredith and, not receiving a response, going into the room and realising, too soon, what had happened. 383-384[412]-[413]

But a couple of pages later, he abandons this premise in favor of a different one:

That this action of cleaning could have been carried out the same night, immediately after the murder, seems difficult to hypothesise. To linger on in the house where Meredith’s body lay could have been risky. On the contrary, returning in the morning would have allowed [them] to do the cleaning under better conditions and with more time available; it is also possible that more cleaning products were needed, as the visit to Quintavalle’s shop leads us to believe. 386[415]

OK, so they ditched the phones and locked the door because they were afraid someone would return in the morning... but they held off cleaning until morning because they were afraid someone might return in the middle of the night.

This is the quality of the reasoning through which this pompous twit has decided that two young people should spend the next quarter-century in prison. Donald Trump is right, but he doesn't take it far enough. Mignini is the one who belongs in prison, and so do Massei, Micheli, Matteini, and the rest of the buffoons who have perpetrated this travesty.

 

[Fine]

??? This logic is utterly backward. Why kill someone in the first place if you're worried about the disturbance?
You're trying to say that Amanda and Raffaele were cautious and risk-averse, and yet arbitrarily, on a whim, with no possible motive, they decided to engage in the highest-risk activity possible, committing murder. Not only that, they accepted the additional risk of acting in concert with someone they hardly knew. They were willing to do a thrill killing with Rudy Guede, and then let him go off and do God knows what, or tell God knows who, but they didn't want to pitch a rock through a window because they might create a disturbance. Is that really what you believe?

______________

Ummm. I think you'll find that most murderers are more dis-inclined to create a public disturbance after the murder, than before.

And you must be confusing me with someone else. I've never suggested than the lovebirds killed with no motive. Maybe the murder was not premeditated, but not without a motive.

///

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Do you honestly believe that? I don't think that you do.

But if you do then you obviously know little or nothing about climbing of any sort, or about the capabilities of the average person. Yes, it could feasibly be done. It certainly could not "easily" be done by many people. Anyone capable of doing it "easily" would be verging on the skills and training of a world class gymnast.

I think we can be fairly confident that Guede is not. If he was he would have had no money problems. He would have been performing somewhere.

Try it yourself sometime. Find a wall with a top above your head and see how "easily" you can do it. Invite all your friends to try. Get back to us with the results. Please include video.

I wonder how much these kids get paid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOOlUR9Cg1Q

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

I wonder how much these kids get paid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOOlUR9Cg1Q

I love watching Parkour! Somehow though I don't think Rudy was a Parkour practicer. It is unfortunate the only person to attempt to enter through that window was a lawyer in a suit. The defense could have presented videos of several different people climbing right through that window as evidence showing how it was possibly accessed on the night of the crime. Perhaps one from the planter and another climbing up the grate of the lower window and another hanging off the roof overhang.

 

[Amazer]

I love watching Parkour! Somehow though I don't think Rudy was a Parkour practicer. It is unfortunate the only person to attempt to enter through that window was a lawyer in a suit. The defense could have presented videos of several different people climbing right through that window as evidence showing how it was possibly accessed on the night of the crime. Perhaps one from the planter and another climbing up the grate of the lower window and another hanging off the roof overhang.

I think there isn't a snowballs chance in hell that the defense, or any of the Amanda supporters, will actually attempt to give a demonstration of how easy it is. It would look kind of bad and foolish if it fails.