• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
What do they mean that the Guede and Amanda were "Mere Knowledge"?

It's a poor translation (what do you expect from Google) that means that they knew each other casually, i.e. knew each other but were not close friends.

Anyway, bad news for the other two: http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/...tence-bad-news-for-amanda-knox/#ixzz18JWzwHDA

"The decision is not especially positive for Amanda and Raffaele, because it means the Court of Cassation accepted the argument that Meredith was killed by all three people."
 
Last edited:
Ok so you toss a rock through the window and wait to see what happens. No one home. How long would it take to climb and get in the window? 15 to 30 seconds? Look around, no cars coming. Climb in. Can't be anymore exposed than that lawyers office he broke into. Seriously though, do you think a person climbing in a window is going to do it when people are watching. Filomena's window has the least amount of surprises. When on the ground, I dont think you can be seen. You would only be seen when climbing in the window. Where as on the balcony, you would be seen before ever breaking in. Rudy might have been an unlucky criminal but still it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know when you break in a house you do it when people aren't looking. Maybe there is more glass to break on the balcony and he was worried about the amount of noise it would make. What kinda glass did the door have. Was it double paned glass on the door?

Chris C - I don't know if you're skimming this but I've shown beyond any doubt that you cannot be seen at the base of the balcony apart from one position which is bending down to about 5ft tall and effectively poking your head through the "hole" in the tree foliage that covers the small gap between the outhouse and the L-shape of the house underneath the balcony. The fact is that behind that small hole is the wall of the outside of the carpark and no-one can see through it from the flats or carpark and it's on a right angled bend in the road which no driver would be concentrating on in the tenth of a second you'd go past it in the dark. The picture is here. Will you please look at the height of the door on the ground floor and then appreciate the very small scale of the climb as a result. This really is a ridiculous line of argument.

http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image.php?album_id=13&image_id=2164

I assume your commenting on the statement of mine that I highlighted. I stand by my opinion that you would be seen before breaking in. Why you might ask? I guess i should explain this in more detail.

Filomena's Window:
1. Throw rock from ground through window.
2. Wait and see if anyone is home. Your in a decent location should be able to hide if someone reacts to broken window.
3. You can then enter through window, or through front door if you have proper tools.
4. The window is a decent entry point. If someone reacts to the broken window you can quickly escape without ever being identified. If seen before breaking the window you could say you was there to visit the guys downstairs.

Balcony Door:
1. Toss rock up on balcony. That will make noise.
2. Climb up on balcony. Once again your making noise and still dont know if anyone is home. At this time you are exposed to not only people looking at the house but if anyone is home you can now be seen. Plus you still haven't broken into the home.
3. Toss rock through balcony door. Oops thats alot of glass, might even be double paned. Imagine the noise you just made and no where to hide. If someone is home then what? Jump off the balcony?
4. The balcony is the worst possible point of entry. If someone reacts to the broken glass the exit point is a jump over rails to the ground below. Plus your whole body is fully exposed to someone looking out the window/door and identifying you.
 
Last edited:
It's a poor translation (what do you expect from Google) that means that they knew each other casually, i.e. knew each other but were not close friends.

Anyway, bad news for the other two: http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/...tence-bad-news-for-amanda-knox/#ixzz18JWzwHDA

"The decision is not especially positive for Amanda and Raffaele, because it means the Court of Cassation accepted the argument that Meredith was killed by all three people."

How so? Rudy stands convicted of Meredith's murder and rape. In the Knox/Sollecito appeal, the prosecution is going to HAVE to prove that Rudy helped them or that Knox/Sollecito helped Rudy. The court ruling also by confirming Guede's conviction, confirms an earlier ToD.
 
The window id above the road level.

And perfectly visible in all your pictures.

:):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):)
And Italians drive on the right, so as you drive on the road going into Perugia going from the rear of the cottage to the front gate, you are on the side of the road closest to the cottage and you would look out of the car right down over the railings to the "throwing area" and the climbing area


Both those pictures taken of Filomena's window are taken in the lane of oncoming cars. Does anyone have pictures of Filomena's window from cars in the correct lane?
 
Last edited:
The Supreme Court has ruled against Guede and confirmed the verdict of the appeals court:

http://translate.google.com/transla...-di-reclusione-a-Rudy-Guede_311413175658.html

ETA: What appears to be an interesting strategy on the part of Guede's defence (that failed)
Thanks for that update, RoseMontague!

As I will be sitting on the beach in a few moments feeling the sun gloriously shine upon my face,
I will think for a moment of a gal who lost her life in a most brutal, bloody way and I will be glad that a guy,
1 whom without a doubt was with her that night,
has been truly convicted of participation in her death.
May you rest in peace Meredith Kercher....

RW
 
"The decision is not especially positive for Amanda and Raffaele, because it means the Court of Cassation accepted the argument that Meredith was killed by all three people."

On what basis is Greg Burke of Fox News concluding that the court's decision today means that the court accepted the argument that Meredith was killed by all three people?
 
Both those pictures taken of Filomena's window are taken in the lane of oncoming cars. Does anyone have pictures of Filomena's window from cars in the correct lane?

Hello, new poster here. I have been following the break-in line, but the problem I have is that from a car at night it's pretty hard to see anything much, except right in front of you. The contrast makes any unlit areas hard to see, plus you are watching the road, and could only get a glimpse of anyone hanging around or on the cottage.

The same applies for people looking out of apartments, you can see lights, but very little in unlit areas. Not many people are going to be staring out the windows anyway.

The people who would have the best vision and awareness, and time to look into dark valleys are pedestrians, but it's not the sort of road pedestrians would normally walk along.

Generally, AFAICT all entry points to the cottage are well hidden at night, and it would be an easy place to burgle. The question of which is the easiest is subjective and probably impossible to decide without a practical test. If the cottage had been thoroughly cased in advance, with knowledge of the Filomena's faulty shutters, and that most of the occupants were out, then Filomena's window would make a decent challenge.

A person standing on a balcony would only arouse suspicion if the witness knew that the person was not a resident. In contrast, someone climbing an outside wall would strike you as quite unusual, if not suspicious.

Burglars are lazy (otherwise they would get a job), and would take the easiest route.

The less suspicious, and easier route, appears to be the balcony, and this is apparently the choice of entry for practicing burglars, so we should conclude that is the "best" entry. We can't really dispute that, since we don't know how well Rudy may have cased the cottage, nor whether experience had made him more proficient or not.

So I would score this as balcony 2, speculation 0.
 
So I would score this as balcony 2, speculation 0.

1 thing you fail to add in.

Rudy was caught in possession of stolen goods from an office that was broke into by gaining entry through a 2nd story window. This shows at the very least he knew about breaking into buildings by gaining access by climbing burglar bars.
Where as if you CLIMB the balcony you expose yourself to the people living at the apartment. There 8 people living in those 2 apartments. 4 upstairs and 4 downstairs. You would have to check(case) upstairs and downstairs before ever starting your break in. Thus knocking on the door downstairs to check and see if your friends are home and then tossing a rock through the window of the upstairs apartment is the most logical choice.
 
I'm cool with the one that showed the glass on top of the windowsill that no one had ever crawled over.


There are some pieces of glass on the sill but they are laying flat and well below the hight of the frame where the arms would hit if one were to reach through the window to grab the inner sill . With reasonable upper body strength, Rudy could easily push off with his right foot from the toehold on the lower window casement, gaining a little assistance by pushing against the wall with his left foot where we see a scuff mark and raise himself to a position where his arms are straight and his body mass is centered over and supported by his hands. From this position, he simply steps through his arms, allows his body to lean forward and steps down to the floor. This is a very simple and straight forward maneuver that anyone with reasonable athletic ability can do. Even most duffers should be able to simply pull themselves into the room head first and roll onto the floor. The outer sill is not used so there is no need to clear it off. Of course, not everybody will have the strength and coordination to pull this off and I will accept the word of posters that say they themselves could not do it.

On the other hand, it may not be obvious to a layman that has never entered a window this way that they wouldn't need to clean off the outer sill.


Tell ya what. You steer us to a collection of every single photo that was taken at the scene, and we'll go over them together.


Is this somehow a claim that the photos you would have taken if you were the inspector with this duty were in fact taken by ILE but for some reason they haven't been released yet?
 
1 thing you fail to add in.

Rudy was caught in possession of stolen goods from an office that was broke into by gaining entry through a 2nd story window balcony. This shows at the very least he knew about breaking into buildings by gaining access by climbing burglar bars.

As the bars below the balcony.

Where as if you CLIMB the balcony you expose yourself to the people living at the apartment. There 8 people living in those 2 apartments. 4 upstairs and 4 downstairs. You would have to check(case) upstairs and downstairs before ever starting your break in. Thus knocking on the door downstairs to check and see if your friends are home and then tossing a rock through the window of the upstairs apartment is the most logical choice.

This mean you think he didn't climb through the window?
 
Here is a theory I am thinking more and more of every day. I think it fits the evidence and explains Amanda's inconsistencies and Raff's silence and writings.

Just suppose, and I'm just throwing this out here, suppose Amanda was outside of Raff's flat that night and ran into Rudy. Suppose Rudy says "Hey there, where's that georgeous roommate of yours? I sure would like to ____________________ !" (fill in the blank: date her/spend time with her/get into her pants, etc.)

Amanda says "You know, I think she might be at home.... alone! How about I give you my key and you can go ask her yourself?" She gives him her key, tells him to leave it in the planter when he's finished with it and goes on her way.

The next day she goes home and sees that something went terribly wrong but she can't tell ILE a consistent story because she knows she facilitated the crime.

In this hypothetical scenario it could be Rudy who staged the scene because, after the night turned deadly, he wanted to hide the fact that he had been allowed access. After all, if ILE didn't find a break-in they would immediately go to a roommate (AK) who might spill the beans. It could also have been AK and/or RS who staged the break-in to hide their involvement. It just depends on how much you think they're involved.

I kind of lean toward Rudy staging the break-in (hence the reason he chose a second story window - from experience.) But then I really want AK to be as innocent as possible but I just can't get past some of the evidence.
 
<snip>
I don't see the climb through that window as being "intimidating". I see it as being stupid when there are much easier and less conspicuous alternatives.

I also don't see any substantive evidence that it was actually attempted...


I know how you hate to be in agreement with me, quadraginta, but it's gonna happen here. :p

By the way, I have a lot of catching up to do before responding to any more posts, but I wanted to mention that I had a dentist appointment today and I read JREF while in the chair (they told me I could watch whatever I wanted)!
 
Here is a theory I am thinking more and more of every day. I think it fits the evidence and explains Amanda's inconsistencies and Raff's silence and writings.

Just suppose, and I'm just throwing this out here, suppose Amanda was outside of Raff's flat that night and ran into Rudy. Suppose Rudy says "Hey there, where's that georgeous roommate of yours? I sure would like to ____________________ !" (fill in the blank: date her/spend time with her/get into her pants, etc.)

Amanda says "You know, I think she might be at home.... alone! How about I give you my key and you can go ask her yourself?" She gives him her key, tells him to leave it in the planter when he's finished with it and goes on her way.

The next day she goes home and sees that something went terribly wrong but she can't tell ILE a consistent story because she knows she facilitated the crime.

In this hypothetical scenario it could be Rudy who staged the scene because, after the night turned deadly, he wanted to hide the fact that he had been allowed access. After all, if ILE didn't find a break-in they would immediately go to a roommate (AK) who might spill the beans. It could also have been AK and/or RS who staged the break-in to hide their involvement. It just depends on how much you think they're involved.

I kind of lean toward Rudy staging the break-in (hence the reason he chose a second story window - from experience.) But then I really want AK to be as innocent as possible but I just can't get past some of the evidence.

thats way out there.

how about the car in the driveway, with the gate open (the tow truck driver saw), was the cohort in crime with Rudy, a watch out....and maybe Rudy/some unknown did enter with Meredith into her cottage but under duress.

maybe Rudy came back to the cottage to burglarize it after finding it empty the first visit. maybe it wasn't kebob he got, but a helping hand who had a car.
 
As the bars below the balcony.



This mean you think he didn't climb through the window?

I have never denied the possibility that he entered the apartment from a different access point. The main thing is checking for presence before breaking into a home. Rudy already found out before when he was confronted multiple times by being caught breaking into places, that you need to check a residence before breaking into it.
 
There are some pieces of glass on the sill but they are laying flat and well below the hight of the frame where the arms would hit if one were to reach through the window to grab the inner sill . With reasonable upper body strength, Rudy could easily push off with his right foot from the toehold on the lower window casement, gaining a little assistance by pushing against the wall with his left foot where we see a scuff mark and raise himself to a position where his arms are straight and his body mass is centered over and supported by his hands. From this position, he simply steps through his arms, allows his body to lean forward and steps down to the floor. This is a very simple and straight forward maneuver that anyone with reasonable athletic ability can do. Even most duffers should be able to simply pull themselves into the room head first and roll onto the floor. The outer sill is not used so there is no need to clear it off. Of course, not everybody will have the strength and coordination to pull this off and I will accept the word of posters that say they themselves could not do it.


High marks for exaggeration, but definitely a fail on plausibility.

No, most people "with reasonable athletic ability" cannot hang from their hands against a flat vertical surface, raise themselves up past their shoulders to a handstand and then "step through" those hands which, if you recall, are only going to be placed on ~sixteen inches of sill surface. Most people wouldn't be able to do this starting from their knees on a tumbling mat. Yes, a trained gymnast could, but I haven't seen any credible claims that Guede was a trained gymnast.

This doesn't even begin to explain why anyone would bother, when cleaning off the sill is such a quick and simple act with absolutely no negative repercussions for a burglar breaking in.

On the other hand, it may not be obvious to a layman that has never entered a window this way that they wouldn't need to clean off the outer sill.





Is this somehow a claim that the photos you would have taken if you were the inspector with this duty were in fact taken by ILE but for some reason they haven't been released yet?


How did you manage to warp what I said into such a bizarrely twisted statement? Do you ever make yourself dizzy trying to follow your own logic?

I have no idea how many photos were taken by ILE. Neither do you. The one contributor to this thread who has claimed to have the most knowledge and possession of such data is Charlie Wilkes, who has not offered any reasonable explanations yet for not sharing the many gigabytes of data he claims to be in possession of, but has chosen only to share the ones which he feels are supportive of the Knox partisan's point of view.

Since at least a couple of those backfired rather dramatically I can understand his reticence.

Even if he were to share everything he had we would still not have any way of knowing that it encompassed everything that was actually taken.

And even if we did it would remain impeachable by those who were intent on impeachment. The truth is that photographs are of no merit in a trial unless thet are attested to as true representations by a real, live person who was there when they were taken. In this case we have the testimony of real, live people who were there. This has already been derided by Knox partisans as the work of bumbling, incompetent conspirators.
 
The purposes are to assure defendant's rights are respected; to assure awarenes of the law on the side of the defendant; to assure a search for excuplatory arguments is made; to have a tool to protect people from possible false accusations by other citizens; to take legal steps with the help of technical expertise.


That all sounds very good to me. In that context, then, why would you say, "Prosecutors to interact with lawyers? What a ridiculous idea."

As you point out, the defendant can't be expected to have awareness of the law or technical expertise. Who should be interacting with whom, according to you?
 
a weak case

For example, in the case of AK, one juror might believe that AK's alibi was contradicted by the facts, and believe that she was guilty because her reason for lying was that she knew she had done it, and was just trying to avoid punishment. Another might draw the inference that she lied, and connected with the dna evidence at the scene, conclude she was present during the murder.

Another juror might believe the double dna knife is conclusive, and not require much beyond that.

Another might buy the "too low defense", but be convinced by the mixed dna in Filomena's room and elsewhere.

Another might have no interest or understanding of the dna evidence, and believe the burglary was staged.

Another might be convinced by her knowing things that only a killer would know, and regard everything else as "mere surplusage".

And so on.
SNIP
AK, in particular, has too many problems.

TomM43,

An interesting comment. The prosecution appears to be saying. We have a bunch of arguments. Not one of them is a slam-dunk winner, but the cumulative effect of them is strong. However, let me take a shot at it from the pro-innocence point of view.

Amanda believed that she knew at least one wrong fact with respect to the murder, did she not? I cannot think of anything she knew that only a murderer would know. She imagined or was asked to imagine a scream, but to imagine a scream of a person in mortal terror is not very probative, IMHO.

Meredith's profile on the knife is probably the result of contamination. Not one, but two facts are suggestive of this, the lack of blood and the fact that the sample was low template DNA forensics. The mixed DNA evidence is evidence of exactly nothing. Massei made something out of nothing, in the process telling us more about himself than the crime.

If the spray of glass from the window is consistent with the rock being thrown from outside (as the retired Carabinieri testified), then I do not see how it can also be consistent with its being thrown by a person who is inside. The window would be in a different place at a different angle, and the trajectory of the rock would also be different. There is also the problem of Filomena's inadvertently disturbing the contents of her room, which muddies the water a bit.

On the other hand, the prosecution's case is problematic. I cannot accept a time of death around 11:30 or so. If food hung around in the stomach that long, the advice that anesthesiologists give their patients to the effect of not eating six hours before a surgery would not be of much use in avoiding complications during anesthesia. Plus the cell phone evidence around 10 O'clock cannot reasonably be from Meredith, IMO. If we move the TOD up to 9:30 or so, then there is simply not enough time for Amanda to become so drugged up as to lose all control.

I cannot be certain that the idea of assembling a strong case from many small pieces of evidence is a flawed approach in theory. However, it fails in this case because of individual elements that are hobbled by one or more serious weaknesses.
 
1 thing you fail to add in.

Rudy was caught in possession of stolen goods from an office that was broke into by gaining entry through a 2nd story window. This shows at the very least he knew about breaking into buildings by gaining access by climbing burglar bars.
Where as if you CLIMB the balcony you expose yourself to the people living at the apartment. There 8 people living in those 2 apartments. 4 upstairs and 4 downstairs. You would have to check(case) upstairs and downstairs before ever starting your break in. Thus knocking on the door downstairs to check and see if your friends are home and then tossing a rock through the window of the upstairs apartment is the most logical choice.

For me the most logical thing to do would be to ring the door bell/knock on the door. If one of the upstairs tenants answers the door you say you were looking for one of the boys from downstairs. Then just excuse yourself and leave. No need to hurl rocks around if you just want to determine if someone is home.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom