Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kermit]

he would have had to unload and leave behind any burglar items which he had already tucked away

.
Of course, the alternative to Withnail's scenario is that Rudy wasn't there as a bumbling thief, nor that he scaled Filomena's outer wall, but rather that he was simply let in the front door.

 

[Katody Matrass]

If, in fact, there was any blood on his jeans and shoes to clean up.

Do you have any evidence to support this conjecture?

It's incredible you have so little knowledge about the case you follow so religiously. Guede explicitly states in his diary he got his trousers dirty with blood.

 

[Withnail1969]

.
Of course, the alternative to Withnail's scenario is that Rudy wasn't there as a bumbling thief, nor that he scaled Filomena's outer wall, but rather that he was simply let in the front door.

Can i ask if you yourself are a burglar, because you seem to have very strong views on how burglaries should be conducted.

 

[platonov]

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes
I posted this before but some of you may not have seen it:

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

The two crazies both climbed a three story brick building in 8 seconds! There was hardly anything to grab onto!

At the end, on the last stunt, it looked like one of the kids was about to drop 15-20 feet then the video stopped. He was hanging onto a tiny sill by his fingertips for ten seconds when the video stopped.

Nobody who sees that video should have any doubts that the breakin was not only possible but probable. I just can't understand why the great Perugia police couldn't have found out that tidbit from their interrogation of Guede.

How long was Guede's interrogation?

So Kevin, when you wrote ....

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

<snip>

The argumentative methodology and associated social rituals of the 9-11 deniers are quite interesting................... They do their own kind of "research" where they watch youtube vidoes,......................

<snip>

was the above the kind of thing you were referring to ?

Or were you thinking of the earlier videos showing windows being broken by throwing bricks through them ?

Or perhaps the self made [by one of the FOAKers] video showing how one can lock a door behind ones back ?

Or perhaps this post with video links from London John & Katody Matrass and where KM comments
BTW posting video links is a great idea, here's something also on topic

.

 

[Katody Matrass]

.
Of course, the alternative to Withnail's scenario is that Rudy wasn't there as a bumbling thief, nor that he scaled Filomena's outer wall, but rather that he was simply let in the front door.

No, the alternative which actually fits the facts without mental gymnastics is that he hadn't taken anything yet when he felt the urge.

 

[Kermit]

Skill testing questions (don't screw up!)

Can i ask if you yourself are a burglar, because you seem to have very strong views on how burglaries should be conducted.

.
Well, thank you.

I guess my only strong view is that if someone is a tried and tested burglar as the FOAKers and The Entourage claim Rudy to be (complete with a modus operandi of scaling walls and stealing computers), then that person will do a break-in and do what burglars do, which is to steal things.

Can I ask you, what do you think that tried-and-tested burglar Rudy did between the moment when he tumbled into Filomena's room amid a shower of glass shards, and the moment when he decided to sit down on the toilet in the other part of the house?

1) Did he sit back with a good book and his pipe, waiting for Meredith's arrival? Or,
2) do you think that the toilet was immediately after (as in millisecond) the break-in? Or,
3) did he start stealing things, only to have to leave the items behind after the murder for fear of linking him to the crime (in spite of leaving DNA which was alot more useful in linking him to the crime)

OR ..... if you think that options 1, 2 AND 3 above are all ludicrous - as I do - maybe his means of entering the cottage and reasons for being there are different.

If you find yourself unable to agree with me, that's fine, but then you'll have to explain which of the three options apply to Rudy's break-in.

 

[Withnail1969]

.

Can I ask you, what do you think that tried-and-tested burglar Rudy did between the moment when he tumbled into Filomena's room amid a shower of glass shards, and the moment when he decided to sit down on the toilet in the other part of the house?

First he went to the kitchen, where he drank some orange juice from the carton, thirsty after his exertions and on a burglar's high. After that he went to the toilet, and in that moment Meredith came back home. Then he raped and killed her.

 

[Kermit]

Even Amanda is more believable

First he went to the kitchen, where he drank some orange juice from the carton, thirsty after his exertions and on a burglar's high. After that he went to the toilet, and in that moment Meredith came back home. Then he raped and killed her.

And he left his DNA and shoeprints and - according to the FOAKers - the bathmat footprint, yet decided to renounce taking any booty with him because that could link him with the crime?

And he washed the top of his shoes, but not the soles.

I prefer to believe Amanda when she says that she was present in the cottage when Meredith was killed.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Let's see, when Rudy sat down on the pink toilet seat in the other part of the house he had already likely been in the house at least for a few minutes (I mean, he would be a criminally poor criminal if he got the stomach cramps just when he was stuck on the outer wall in the view of passers by, and had to tumble into Filomena's room and go running to the bathroom on the far side of the house and sit down to intestinal bliss).

So your argument is that Rudy was a poor criminal? I can agree on this. After all he didn't get rich and his criminal spree ended rather swiftly and quite badly for him and others.

As we agreed Rudy was not the most professional criminal, I'm sure you'll agree that the rest of your argument is now moot. Thank you.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Don't blame me, I'm only the messenger.

Your colleague Withnail had said: "It's likely that Rudy didn't want to take any items which carried a risk of linking him to the crime scene, once the burglary had turned into a rape and murder."

So it's normal that I apply "a rigorously evidence-based, science-first approach" (your self-described method of work) to such speculation by Withnail.

Let's see, when Rudy sat down on the pink toilet seat in the other part of the house he had already likely been in the house at least for a few minutes (I mean, he would be a criminally poor criminal if he got the stomach cramps just when he was stuck on the outer wall in the view of passers by, and had to tumble into Filomena's room and go running to the bathroom on the far side of the house and sit down to intestinal bliss).

Although Charlie seems now to be painting a psychological profile of Rudy to be that of some serial killer called Ramirez, for the sake of argument here, let's just assume that he's a run of the mill human-fly burglar who initially only wanted to steal a computer or two (which the FOAKers seem to insist is part of a criminal past in Rudy).

So, there's a professional burglar who has arrived unscathed in Filomena's room, and he hasn't yet felt the need to run to the bathroom ..... what do burglars do? Why they steal things!! and since a portable computer, for as small as it may be won't fit into your Levis jeans hip pocket, any burglar worth his salt will have a bag or backpack to put his loot into, and he'll start putting things into that bag.

Or is the latest version of FOAKer speculation that he sat down and watched an Italian soap opera on TV, waiting for someone to come home in order to rape and murder them?

So, Kevin, let's get back to Withnail's theory which has troubled you: if Rudy wasn't going to take anything with him when he ran out of the cottage (thereby reducing his chances - according to Withnail - of getting associated with the crime, in spite of DNA and shoeprints which he did leave), then he would have had to unload and leave behind any burglar items which he had already tucked away.

Unless if you want to go the way of him tumbling into Filomena's room with stomach cramps which have seized him in the last three minutes while he was on the outer wall, trashing the room as he flails about orienting himself, not touching any of the burglarable material, running to the farthest away toilet, and just then an unsuspecting Meredith decides to enter the front door, not having seen the broken window from the outside nor the light in the other bathroom.

That's a very long way of saying "Yeah, I just totally made up the backpack, and made up Rudy putting things in his backpack and taking them back out of his backpack".

Your personal incredulity that Rudy didn't do whatever it is you imagine a burglar would do is not proof beyond reasonable doubt of anything. In fact it's not even interesting.

Instead of making things up and then declaring them to be ridiculous, why not address the interesting arguments?

For example, is there any coherent narrative of the crime which has Meredith dying at 21:10 or so, in which Raffaele and Amanda are involved with the murder? That would be a much more interesting thing to discuss.

 

[Withnail1969]

And he left his DNA and shoeprints and - according to the FOAKers - the bathmat footprint, yet decided to renounce taking any booty with him because that could link him with the crime?

And he washed the top of his shoes, but not the soles.

I prefer to believe Amanda when she says that she was present in the cottage when Meredith was killed.

He took Meredith's cash and her mobiles. There was no way he was going to take a laptop after committing such a serious crime because they're too easy to trace. There was nothing else in the cottage worth stealing.

edit to add - apart from Filomena's jewellery, which was probably junk if it was just lying around, and also too traceable.

 

[Kermit]

Tough nut to crack

Your personal incredulity that Rudy didn't do whatever it is you imagine a burglar would do is not proof beyond reasonable doubt of anything.

.
Tell me Kevin, when you apply your world renown scientific approach to the scenario of Rudy being a wall-scaling burglar, what provision does your scenario make for Rudy carrying off his booty, especially if he may have to exit the same way as he entered?

In other words, how does he carry the stolen items:

- in his arms? (difficult if he's hanging on to a rotten wood shutter which is swinging back and forth, as Charlie would have us believe)
- in his pockets? ¨(nope, no PC's fit in)
- on top of his head?
- he throws the stolen goods out to the street?
- or, in a backpack.

I'm not developing any theory of my own. I'm trying to help you and yours flesh out the cumbersome details of your theory.

 

[TomCH]

I'm sorry I misunderstood your post. I thought you were stating something as a fact, but after reviewing the conversation I see you simply attacked a straw man.

Not at all.

IF Rudy (or anyone) left a bare bloody print partially on the bath mat, then the rest of the print MUST have been left on the floor. As none was found on the floor, the bare print on the floor MUST have been cleaned up. But since Rudy had various other prints around the place, that he did NOT clean up, why on earth would he have cleaned up this one? The only reasonable explanation is that he did not leave any bare footprints!

 

[platonov]

He took Meredith's cash and her mobiles. There was no way he was going to take a laptop after committing such a serious crime because they're too easy to trace. There was nothing else in the cottage worth stealing.

edit to add - apart from Filomena's jewellery, which was probably junk if it was just lying around, and also too traceable.

He didn't even try the other 2 bedrooms for cash or jewelry - and he had an hour or 3 to kill.

In fact AK cant even remember if she checked her bedroom to see if her cash was missing. Strange burglar, and victim of burglary, indeed.

.

 

[Matthew Best]

.In other words, how does he carry the stolen items:

- in his arms? (difficult if he's hanging on to a rotten wood shutter which is swinging back and forth, as Charlie would have us believe)

I really don't think it would be too difficult to carry a couple of mobile phones and some cash in one's pocket. If you find it too difficult, then that's really a problem for you, not anyone else.

 

[Withnail1969]

.
Tell me Kevin, when you apply your world renown scientific approach to the scenario of Rudy being a wall-scaling burglar, what provision does your scenario make for Rudy carrying off his booty, especially if he may have to exit the same way as he entered?

In other words, how does he carry the stolen items:

- in his arms? (difficult if he's hanging on to a rotten wood shutter which is swinging back and forth, as Charlie would have us believe)
- in his pockets? ¨(nope, no PC's fit in)
- on top of his head?
- he throws the stolen goods out to the street?
- or, in a backpack.

I'm not developing any theory of my own. I'm trying to help you and yours flesh out the cumbersome details of your theory.

Did Rudy have a backpack - Not necessarily. When I was burgled, the burglar also stole a suitably sturdy bag to carry what used to be my XBox 360 and some games.

 

[Matthew Best]

he had an hour or 3 to kill.
.

How do you know?

 

[Kermit]

He took Meredith's cash and her mobiles. There was no way he was going to take a laptop after committing such a serious crime because they're too easy to trace. There was nothing else in the cottage worth stealing.

.
A mobile phone is about a million times more traceable than a PC.

DNA is a much more condemning item to leave behind than a PC.

If there's nothing else of value in a students' cottage, then why even break in to begin with?

 

[Withnail1969]

Not at all.

IF Rudy (or anyone) left a bare bloody print partially on the bath mat, then the rest of the print MUST have been left on the floor. As none was found on the floor, the bare print on the floor MUST have been cleaned up. But since Rudy had various other prints around the place, that he did NOT clean up, why on earth would he have cleaned up this one? The only reasonable explanation is that he did not leave any bare footprints!

The print only formed where there was a patch of blood and water mix on the bathmat, therefore it was partial.

 

[Kermit]

I really don't think it would be too difficult to carry a couple of mobile phones and some cash in one's pocket. If you find it too difficult, then that's really a problem for you, not anyone else.

.
Ah, so you're saying he went to the cottage - in spite of his alleged past of being a serial burglar and computer thief - only thinking of some pocket change and a couple of student style mobile phones.

Gotcha.