Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Katody Matrass]

I don't have the footprints organized but it was one of the hall prints that I first noticed a splatter that couldn't have been left by the shoe. Looking at the other hall prints, they have the same characteristic dark border of a diluted puddle that dries out. Someone should experiment with whole and diluted blood on tile to see what most closely resembles the ones seen in this case.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=597&pictureid=4290[/qimg]


The footprint in Meredith's room at 5C (posted by Rose above) shows a saturation of blood on the edge of the shoe. I wonder if Rudy was being careful not to step in the blood but didn't notice the bloody water that continued to drain off his pant leg.

Great find, looks like diluted blood indeed. The explanation that it was dripping from his wet trouser leg makes sense. Wasn't all the shoeprints of the right foot, just like the bathmat print?

 

[Dan O.]

Was the gate itself locked or unlocked?

Is this the door which notoriously blows open in a light breeze if it is not properly secured with the deadbolt by someone aware of its foibles?

Who closes a door intending that it be locked as securly as possible and doesn't set the deadbolt or even test that the latch has set?

There is nothing in that photo which proves that an illegal entry was effected through that door, or even strongly indicates that it was.

At least you are accepting that the door is open. The first responses that I got when posting this information was that they couldn't see that the door was open. Even if the gate was open and someone was standing in the entry way, you would say there is no proof that they went any further. Your argument fails.

The door being open and the seal damaged is a serious indication of a breach and should have been reported to the defense and investigated.

Conversely, we know that there was an occasion after the crime was committed when the apartment was broken into. Do we want to discuss (again) what method of entry was chosen as being the most attractive?

Only a total idiot would even think of breaking into an occupied cottage from the back deck where they are fully exposed to the occupants and have no easy route for escape. The police eliminated the risk of the back route by evicting the tenants and closed off the easy route through Filomena's window by propery closing and latching the shutters and boarding up the broken window.

 

[Dan O.]

Great find, looks like diluted blood indeed. The explanation that it was dripping from his wet trouser leg makes sense. Wasn't all the shoeprints of the right foot, just like the bathmat print?

That's right. I was thinking that Rudy was really careless with that right foot of his. But if they are all related to the same source of diluted blood dripping off the cuff it would be a much simpler explanation. The bit that isn't tied in yet are the 5 footprints on the pillowcase and a possible footprint on the rug.

We have assumed that the pillow was placed under Meredith shortly after the assault. But the footprints were made in a short sequence starting in the shower and exiting out the door.

 

[Fine]

Who closes a door intending that it be locked as securly as possible and doesn't set the deadbolt or even test that the latch has set?




At least you are accepting that the door is open. The first responses that I got when posting this information was that they couldn't see that the door was open. Even if the gate was open and someone was standing in the entry way, you would say there is no proof that they went any further. Your argument fails.

The door being open and the seal damaged is a serious indication of a breach and should have been reported to the defense and investigated.


Only a total idiot would even think of breaking into an occupied cottage from the back deck where they are fully exposed to the occupants and have no easy route for escape. The police eliminated the risk of the back route by evicting the tenants and closed off the easy route through Filomena's window by propery closing and latching the shutters and boarding up the broken window.

_______________________________

Dan,

The wooden door proper was probably never locked by the cops, and so was subject to being blown open by the wind. The accordion steel door was probably secured by the cops using a padlock. Using a police padlock would permit those---and only those---with authorization to enter the front door.

///

 

[Danceme]

Danceme,

If you go to another discussion forum on this case that shall remain nameless, you will find both the white knight argument, and the middle-aged lust argument put forth as reasons for people such as Bruce Fisher and Charlie Wilkes defending Amanda Knox. If you go to the second link I previously provided, you will find,

“Amanda Knox, Amanda Knox
Some people think she's really cute.
They shout ‘Free her, she's such a fox!’”

This is another version of the MAL argument, as I see it.

I have heard variations on these arguments, and on some others that are equally bereft of intellectual merit, for so long that I thought it was time to respond and be done with it. No, I do not see myself as a white knight; I see myself as an ordinary citizen. If you believe that the final paragraph of my previous comment was anything other than dead-serious, I suggest you Google the name “Eric Frimpong” and ask yourself whether you think he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (just as an example off the top of my head). Don’t be shy about picking a case yourself; there are plenty to go around.

Upon reflection, I see another interpretation of your comment, to the effect that you don’t see the point of my bringing up Ms. Knox’s intimate behavior. I am somewhat uncomfortable discussing it myself, yet this was a trial in which the her buying underwear and possessing condoms and a vibrator were treated.

You forgot the last line in that poem, posted by a female,

"I say, "So's Joran Van Der Sloot."

I think the entire thread was a joke, poking fun at what could possibly consume so many people for so many pages, just other longtime JREF members having a lighthearted moment. If you read other threads on JREF you'll see what I mean. I did see however that you came into the thread and tried to explain certain misconceptions as you have done several times before on other threads that have popped up. This is why I used the term white knight, because you feel you must go defend her wherever people decide to talk about her, instead of just sticking to this thread. It's kind of like what Harry Rag does but opposite. And yes, I don't see the point of bringing up her intimate behavior. I hadn't seen any of those other threads you and others have sometimes posted links to. I have this thread bookmarked and come straight here. I would say its the same for many others. If you don't go around pointing out everywhere people are talking about her, less people would actually read it.

All of the evidence in this case was collected by the prosecution. You are asking the question of the wrong party.

However it is the Knox and Mellas families who are giving out the evidence, but only to the most die-hard innocentisti. If the prosecution has it, so does the defence (except those pesky ?fsi? files) I think the point was that if it were made more freely available instead of being doled out slowly and piecemeal by Charlie or Bruce more people may join forces, if in fact their assertions of innocence were borne out by said evidence (which of course they don't have to prove).

It takes substantial time to activate the answering service when the called phone is online. Nobody sets her phone to go to voicemail just after a 3 seconds of ringing. Does it make sense?

Yes, agreed. It would ring maybe 4 times then go to voicemail. Normally if I'm really trying to get hold of someone I try many more times after this though. Like I said before it could have just meant Meredith didn't hear the phone ring because she was outside or in a noisy place.

 

[Alt+F4]

All of the evidence in this case was collected by the prosecution. You are asking the question of the wrong party.

So if you don't mind me asking, who was offering you a hard drive full of material?

EDIT: The material available online is maybe 5g at most.

 

[Alt+F4]

It takes substantial time to activate the answering service when the called phone is online. Nobody sets her phone to go to voicemail just after a 3 seconds of ringing. Does it make sense?

Here's the phone calls:

12:07 – Amanda calls Meredith’s English phone (16 seconds)
12:08 – Amanda calls Filomena (68 seconds)
12:11 – Amanda calls Meredith’s Italian phone (3 seconds)
12:11 – Amanda calls Meredith’s English phone (4 seconds)

12:12 – Filomena calls Amanda (36 seconds)
12:20 – Filomena calls Amanda (65 seconds)

12:34 – Filomena calls Amanda (48 seconds)
12:47 – Amanda calls her mother (88 seconds)
12:50 – Raffaele calls his sister (39 seconds)
12:51 – Raffaele calls 112 (169 seconds)

 

[Danceme]

Here's the phone calls:

12:07 – Amanda calls Meredith’s English phone (16 seconds)
12:08 – Amanda calls Filomena (68 seconds)
12:11 – Amanda calls Meredith’s Italian phone (3 seconds)
12:11 – Amanda calls Meredith’s English phone (4 seconds)

12:12 – Filomena calls Amanda (36 seconds)
12:20 – Filomena calls Amanda (65 seconds)

12:34 – Filomena calls Amanda (48 seconds)
12:35 - Raffaele calls to charge his phone (135 seconds)
12:38 = Raffaele receives text confirmation of payment from his phone (1 second)
12:40 - Raffaele's father calls him (67 seconds)
12:47 – Amanda calls her mother (88 seconds)
12:50 – Raffaele calls his sister (39 seconds)
12:51 – Raffaele calls 112 (169 seconds)

I added some missing calls of Raffaele. I'm curious about the call with his father. Wouldn't his father have advised him to call 112 if Raffaele told him the story? Why wait another 9 minutes then call his sister to be given this advice? or perhaps his father told him to call Vanessa and see what she thinks.
[nitpicky] Did his father testify to their conversation [/nitpicky]

 

[Danceme]

Wow, sure is quiet here these days. I guess everyone found a new playground but me.

 

[JREF2010]

I added some missing calls of Raffaele. I'm curious about the call with his father. Wouldn't his father have advised him to call 112 if Raffaele told him the story? Why wait another 9 minutes then call his sister to be given this advice? or perhaps his father told him to call Vanessa and see what she thinks.
[nitpicky] Did his father testify to their conversation [/nitpicky]

According to Massei's report the entire incident lasted about 24 minutes.

After reading so many articles of the Nov 2 morning, and then finally with the Massei report cell logs and notes, it all happened in such a short time. That really shocked me all of this discussion is about 24minutes.

12:51 RS calls 112
12:54 RS calls 112) pg 320
After that, they left the house, one reason being to look at the broken window from the outside; and while they were outside, two individuals from the police approached them. pg71

Fabio Marzi in fact testified that they two young people told him ‚they were awaiting the arrival of the Carabinieri because there had been a burglary inside the house‛ (page 122, hearing of February 6, 2009). While Marsi was accompanied by Amanda to see the traces of blood in the smaller bathroom (page 123, hearing of February 6, 2009), Battistelli was taken to Romanelli’s bedroom
the Postal Police (who it can be held that, according [81] to what is maintained by the defendants’ defence, arrived after Raffaele Sollecito’s telephone call to 112, and this by nothing other than the fact that regarding these calls to 112, the Postal Police say nothing; in the same way that they said nothing about those that preceded them, at 12:40 pm and at 12:50 pm; each of these phone calls being of a not brief duration that, therefore, would not have escaped the attention of the two police officers) that there has been a burglary. Fabio Marsi in fact testified that they two young people told him ‚they were awaiting the arrival of the Carabinieri because there had been a burglary inside the house‛ (page 122, hearing of February 6, 2009).pg89

At about 1:00 pm Filomena Romanelli, her friend Paola Grande and their boyfriends Marco Zaroli and Luca Altieri arrived at the house in Via della Pergola. pg28

Around 1:15 pm on November 2, 2007 the door to the bedroom of Meredith Susanna Cara Kercher was thus broken down pg32

 

[Mary_H]

Wow, sure is quiet here these days. I guess everyone found a new playground but me.

Sorry, Danceme. I think one thing people are waiting for is to see if either the Kerchers or the defense lawyers will be successful in blocking the Lifetime film. If they are not successful, and people watch the film, there will be a lot of discussion following that.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I added some missing calls of Raffaele. I'm curious about the call with his father. Wouldn't his father have advised him to call 112 if Raffaele told him the story?

Could be. He could have advised him to call Vanessa, too.

Why wait another 9 minutes then call his sister to be given this advice? or perhaps his father told him to call Vanessa and see what she thinks.

For example to look around if anything was stolen, smoke a cigarette after finding out it doesn't look that bad, calm down Amanda and stop her from climbing over the balcony railing, wait politely until she finishes her call to USA.
Raffaele reluctance to call the police is understandable. He was hoping that Filomena would arrive any minute and take over the troubles of dealing with the issue. After all it was not his house, and it was Filomena's room that had been broken into, not Amanda's. Nothing appeared to be stolen, and it was quite probable that Amanda's alarm was just overreacting.

Do you have a better explanation?

[nitpicky] Did his father testify to their conversation [/nitpicky]

I guess so. Don't think any contradictions emerged, nothing about it in the Massei speculation.

 

[Danceme]

Do you have a better explanation?

No, that scenario is plausible thanks.

Sorry, Danceme. I think one thing people are waiting for is to see if either the Kerchers or the defense lawyers will be successful in blocking the Lifetime film. If they are not successful, and people watch the film, there will be a lot of discussion following that.

Yes, I imagine there will be. Judging from some of the stills it appears to be going for shock factor.

 

[quadraginta]

Who closes a door intending that it be locked as securly as possible and doesn't set the deadbolt or even test that the latch has set?

Someone who has a security gate that will lock and doesn't need to worry about the entry door. Someone who may not even have the keys to the entry door, but does have a police lock and key. Possibly even someone who was unaware that there was an issue with the spring latch to begin with. This possibility has been raised in regard to other scenarios. I see no reason it needs to be limited to them.

At least you are accepting that the door is open. The first responses that I got when posting this information was that they couldn't see that the door was open. Even if the gate was open and someone was standing in the entry way, you would say there is no proof that they went any further. Your argument fails.

The door being open and the seal damaged is a serious indication of a breach and should have been reported to the defense and investigated.

How do you know that it wasn't?

Only a total idiot would even think of breaking into an occupied cottage from the back deck where they are fully exposed to the occupants and have no easy route for escape. The police eliminated the risk of the back route by evicting the tenants and closed off the easy route through Filomena's window by propery closing and latching the shutters and boarding up the broken window.

What ever happened to the idea of throwing a rock through a window to make sure that no one is home. I seem to remember that being suggested in certain circles to account for ... you know ... a certain rock.

It is not clear to me that the deck would be much more difficult to flee from than extricating one's self from a second story window.

Yours are not plausible objections to using the balcony as an entry route, merely rationalized ones.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Yes, I can't see how to reconcile this with reasonable doubt. It's a possible but contrived scenario whereby Rudy manages to leave one bloody bare footprint on the bathmat but nowhere else.

As opposed to non-contrived scenarios where Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito do a magical clean-up that removes all trace of both of them from the murder room, but leave a relatively visible bloody footprint in plain sight in the bathroom?

Your argument only works if there's a coherent pro-guilt scenario that explains that bathmat footprint better than the pro-innocence scenario. The fact that neither does so completely satisfactorily is not evidence one way or another. It's definitely not proof beyond reasonable doubt one way or another.

Another item which I find very difficult to reconcile with a break-in scenario is the staging of the crime scene, i.e. that Meredith's body was moved after death. While it is possible for someone to do that, it makes no sense.

Again, you need to provide a coherent pro-guilt narrative in which it makes more sense than in the competing pro-innocence narrative. Preferably with specific citations firstly for which specific bit of evidence you are referring to, and secondly what basis you have for believing that it is more probable in the guilty scenario than the innocent scenario.

Typically I see arguments of the form "a lone wolf killer would never move or cover the body, it's totally the work of three people, two of them known to the victim and one a near-total stranger to the other two!". They don't address the second part of the matter, establishing what basis they have for believing that this is in fact evidence of a three-way killing.

Epistemologically it appears to me to be a relative of the Chewbacca Defence - establish that a given issue is confusing, and then as fast as possible assert that if the issue is confusing then an arbitrarily-chosen conclusion necessarily follows.

 

[Kaosium]

Sorry, Danceme. I think one thing people are waiting for is to see if either the Kerchers or the defense lawyers will be successful in blocking the Lifetime film. If they are not successful, and people watch the film, there will be a lot of discussion following that.

I have serious issues with the idea either party should be able to block it. I think it a bizarre overreach, what else should they be able to 'block?' News coverage? Bloggers maybe? I would be very surprised if first amendment rights come second to a case in Italy, and if there, why not anywhere?

As for why I am quiet, I managed to get another yellow card and noticed this:

And to confirm a point - we are no longer "giving the benefit of the doubt" in that thread, so if you add a snarky comment or a mild insult or some other breach of your Membership Agreement and your post is reported expect to be warned or suspended (and even banned).

Perhaps some have not seen it, he's talking about this thread of course. I cannot have much fun with a guillotine over my keyboard, thus I took some advice from the FM thread and started a thread in the conspiracy section tagged with broad parameters which hopefully will allow for humor and friendly banter. It is to engage basically the idea that Amanda Knox innocence supporters are conspiracy theorists, and advance the proposition that in fact it is Mignini who is the conspiracy theorist and the Massei Report a conspiracy theory.

As judging by the posts in AAH it is allowable to call adherents of innocence 'conspiracy theorists' but discussing the nature of conspiracy theories gets you a warning, I figure talking about it there should be OK, and the broad horizons set forth should allow for any discussion of the case without the curious 'rule 11' cards handed out on so many things I thought obviously on topic.

Here's the new thread.

If anyone advances the 'conspiracy theory' angle, send them over.

 

[RWVBWL]

TheSecret of the Door

Hi fellow Innocentisti
Reading the earlier postings by Dan O. and Quadraginta about the state of the front door made me want to bring up something.

Some of you might recall that I have discussed the meaning of the front door being found open by Amanda Knox and that I believe in my theory of what happened that night that it is possible that Rudy Guede stopped by the apartment hours later to see if Meredith Kercher was still alive. Also note that I have wondered if there might have been others who entered the gals apartment that night, since there were unattributed fingerprints found.

While at the beach today I recalled a post that Frank Sfarzo of Perugia Shock had written,
http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2011/01/angels-and-demons-around-amanda-knox.html
with a passage titled "The Secret of the Door".
I wish to comment upon this.

Most of us who believe in Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito's innocence feel that the murder of Meredith Kercher happened around 9:15-9:30pm. Mr. Sfarzo, who did attend the trial and has followed this case, in depth, from the beginning, seems to believe these 2 people are innocent too. However, in this posting, Mr Sfarzo makes a good argument that Nara did heard a scream at 11:30pm. YOU do not want to believe this. BUT if true, how does it fit into your theory of what occured that night?

I am posting this here for debate:

The Secret of the Door

"I was pointing out like hell the huge danger that Toto & Marco represented. Of course, they had seen Amanda! Or Amanda and Raffaele! Really a hell of a problem, don’t you think? The problem for the defense, instead, seemed to be the poor Nara Capezzali, who didn’t see anything...
Nara has been the main target for the defense and a huge object of sarcasm for all Amanda’s supporters. In the ranking of most hated persons, she’s probably second to Mignini and Stefanoni... Personally I never found anything bad in her testimony, which, in its core, seemed to me nothing but genuine.
She could have invented a little detail: a female voice coming from the running people, even just a moan, a word in English, a Hey, a Yes... and that would have sealed the fate for Amanda, forever.
Nara, instead, was honest, and just reported the few things she heard.
In truth she is a witness in favor for Amanda and Raffaele. She, indeed, heard a scream, but it’s really impossible to hear a scream through the walls of those two houses.

She managed to do so because at the cottage something was open.
The window was open, since the intruders had already broken it (never mind, now, if they climbed it or not). More probably, the front door was open as well, which is perfect allowing the sound spread and amplify in that kind of amphitheater structure outside the cottage.

The front door, if not locked, opens by itself with the wind. It was a very windy night and, during the assault in Meredith’s room, the door opened by itself. It could happen, since those who entered with Meredith (never mind, now, if gently or not) didn’t know the secret of the door: that it had to always be locked. Of course they didn’t know: because they were not of the house. Therefore, Amanda could not have been among them."

If Nara heard a scream originating from the apartment at around 11:30 pm that night it would seem to indicate that Meredith Kercher's bedroom door was not yet locked, which then does lend slight credence to my own theory that it was later on, probably after the Domus nightclub had closed, that Rudy Guede re-entered the gals apartment, checked up on Meredith Kercher, sexually assaulted her, cleaned himself up a bit, locked her bedroom door, and split.

If so, I believe that someone else also entered the gals apartment open front door before Rudy Guede came back, and upon looking in her unlocked bedroom and seeing Meredith Kercher lying dead, without a duvet covering her, this person screamed loud enough that Nara Capezzali heard it at about 11:30pm, and this person(s) afterwards left fast also...

Could this have been possible? Do you have any thoughts on this?
Thanks for your opinion, RWVBWL

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

My theory is that Amanda ran out of the house to get Raf once Rudy started fighting with Meredith - she left the door open - the scream heard was Amanda upon discovering what had happened to Merideth. She also didn't lock the door when she returned with RS and the big knife, went to the court to decide what to do, was seen by Toto, went back around 11:30, Rudy gone, Amanda see's Meredith and screams.......

 

[Antony]

I favor the explanation that the bra clasp was collected and taken back to the lab with all the original evidence. When they needed some evidence against Raffaele, they got it out, took it back to the house and taped themselves "finding" it.

That would make sense of the theatrical manner in which the investigators are behaving in the film. It doesn't seem to have occurred to them that questions would be asked over the way they seem to know that the item would be made to be significant "evidence", in advance of testing.

One of the ironies of this case is this:

- when Amanda can be argued to have had knowledge that she shouldn't have, the pro-guilt faction seize upon it to support their accusations against her;
- when the investigators act in a manner clearly showing they have knowledge they shouldn't have (also in guessing where the "murder weapon" would be found), it's not even remarked upon.

 

[Mary_H]

That would make sense of the theatrical manner in which the investigators are behaving in the film. It doesn't seem to have occurred to them that questions would be asked over the way they seem to know that the item would be made to be significant "evidence", in advance of testing.

One of the ironies of this case is this:

- when Amanda can be argued to have had knowledge that she shouldn't have, the pro-guilt faction seize upon it to support their accusations against her;
- when the investigators act in a manner clearly showing they have knowledge they shouldn't have (also in guessing where the "murder weapon" would be found), it's not even remarked upon.

Good points, Antony.