Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Belz...]

Wow. Is this thread(s) really still going on ?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

a person could make a quiet living

Wow. Is this thread(s) really still going on ?

There is a continual supply of misinformation to be corrected. At another site discussing this case, for example, the consensus seems to be that the break-in was staged. Yet the prosecution has never put their version of how the window in Filomena's room was smashed to the test (by demonstrating what happens when a window is actually broken in the manner suggested in the Massei report). Nor have they explained why the landlord subsequently put bars over Filomena's window if entry from that point is so difficult.

 

[uk_dave]

ummmmm not that it should matter to the prosecution (or anyone else) what the owner of the property chooses to do with it's windows, but just out of curiosity, was that one window the only one the landlord chose to install bars over?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the flat was broken into

ummmmm not that it should matter to the prosecution (or anyone else) what the owner of the property chooses to do with it's windows, but just out of curiosity, was that one window the only one the landlord chose to install bars over?

uk_dave,

I do not know. However, the bars were installed after some break-ins in 2008.

 

[uk_dave]

uk_dave,

I do not know. However, the bars were installed after some break-ins in 2008.

If you think the bars are significant to the prosecution or defence case, shouldn't you know whether or not they were installed only on that one window? Wouldn't that be relevant? (in terms of you apportioning relevance to the bars in the first place)

 

[Chris_Halkides]

why pay to have it done if it were superfluous

If you think the bars are significant to the prosecution or defence case, shouldn't you know whether or not they were installed only on that one window? Wouldn't that be relevant? (in terms of you apportioning relevance to the bars in the first place)

uk_dave,
I am looking into your question, which is an interesting one. However, I do not yet entirely see the relevance of whether or not bars were installed elsewhere. If the owner installed bars at Filomena's window, it implies that he or she felt that there was a chance of people entering through that window, irrespective of the chances of going through another window or door. Why spend the money if that window were impregnable? Whether the 2008 burglaries used Filomena's room or some other point of entry is something that I have either forgotten or simply never learned.

 

[uk_dave]

uk_dave,
I am looking into your question, which is an interesting one. However, I do not yet entirely see the relevance of whether or not bars were installed elsewhere. If the owner installed bars at Filomena's window, it implies that he or she felt that there was a chance of people entering through that window, irrespective of the chances of going through another window or door. Why spend the money if that window were impregnable? Whether the 2008 burglaries used Filomena's room or some other point of entry is something that I have either forgotten or simply never learned.

See, this is where your ability to think rationally about this case becomes....... a bit iffy. (No offence intended )

Personally, I don't see what bearing the fact that the owner of the property chose to install bars over that one window can have on either the prosecution or the defence cases. The landlord wants to rent out a property which has been the scene of a vicious murder. Installing bars over the window(s) could be merely a way to make the rental look more desirable by overcoming any irrational fears a renter might have.

But you present yourself here as an expert in the case. You raise the matter of bars being installed over this one window as somehow beneficial to the case for the defence. But you don't actually know if all of the windows had bars fitted, or just this one. Shouldn't you know this already? Isn't it relevant to you formulating an opinion that it could have some bearing on the defence case?

If all the windows have been fitted with bars, does that change your opinion as to it's relevance?

 

[LondonJohn]

If you think the bars are significant to the prosecution or defence case, shouldn't you know whether or not they were installed only on that one window? Wouldn't that be relevant? (in terms of you apportioning relevance to the bars in the first place)

I believe I'm right to say before the murder, the situation for the windows on that level was as follows:

Filomena's window: not barred, and old-style wooden single-pane window

Knox's window: not barred, but modern UPVC (and possibly double-glazed) window)

Meredith's window: barred

Laura's window: barred

Large bathroom window: barred

Double french doors to balcony: not barred, but modern UPVC (and prob double-glazed to meet building regs)

Small side window to kitchen: not barred (this window was the one through which the cottage was subsequently broken into)

In addition, all the windows and doors to the lower level were barred or gated.

So in fact the only feasible points of ingress to the whole house (other than kicking in the door, which was of modern substantial design) were via Filomena's window, Knox's window, the balcony french doors or the small kitchen window. But the french doors and Knox's window were modern (and likely double-glazed), and probably therefore a) far harder to break, and b) lockable. So that leaves Filomena's window or the small kitchen window.

There are decent reasons why an opportunist burglar might choose Filomena's window - the chief one being that it offered a very easy means of escape (either into the shadows or up onto the road and away) if there was wither someone inside the house or if someone saw the B&E in progress. By contrast, the area below the balcony was far harder to "escape" from - given that there was only a narrow exit passageway along the side of the house.

 

[LondonJohn]

By the way, I see that some of the weaker-thinking fraternity/sorority elsewhere are ridiculing the idea that Guede might have thrown the rock through Filomena's window, but that subsequently he entered the cottage via the front door.

Of course, it's perfectly feasible scenario (although I personally think Guede probably did enter via the window). And it's feasible because it's already been discussed at length that when burglars B&E using this sort of method, they often retreat to the shadows after breaking the window, in order to check whether anyone inside or outside the house reacted to the glass breaking. So Guede could have thrown the rock through the window at, say, 8.55pm, and retreated to observe. Meredith might have arrived back at just before 9pm, as Guede stood in the shadows. If so, she might even have seen the broken window as she walked down the drive. But that would almost certainly not have stopped her from opening the front door - perhaps she would have called out as she opened the door to see if there was anyone inside. At that point, Guede could either have appeared and offered to help, or he could have gone on the attack straight away.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

clearing the bar

See, this is where your ability to think rationally about this case becomes....... a bit iffy. (No offence intended )

Personally, I don't see what bearing the fact that the owner of the property chose to install bars over that one window can have on either the prosecution or the defence cases. The landlord wants to rent out a property which has been the scene of a vicious murder. Installing bars over the window(s) could be merely a way to make the rental look more desirable by overcoming any irrational fears a renter might have.

But you present yourself here as an expert in the case. You raise the matter of bars being installed over this one window as somehow beneficial to the case for the defence. But you don't actually know if all of the windows had bars fitted, or just this one. Shouldn't you know this already? Isn't it relevant to you formulating an opinion that it could have some bearing on the defence case?

If all the windows have been fitted with bars, does that change your opinion as to it's relevance?

uk_dave,

No offence taken, yet. Nowhere on my professional CV does it say “expert in the Knox/Sollecito case.” I will grant that I have made this case a greater focus than the average poster at JREF has, but my main areas of interest are in the DNA forensics and the detection of latent blood, not the break-in.

I do not agree that the installation of bars elsewhere would change anything, for the reason I have already offered. Suppose (case 1) there is only one window A that offers opportunity for a burglar, and window B does not. The owner puts bars across A only. Now suppose (case 2) that there are two windows, A and B, both of which offer the same ease of entry into the flat. The owner puts bars over both A and B. What happens at window B does not affect what one does with respect to window A.

You make a better point with respect to the owner’s needing to rent again; it is indeed possible that he or she was more concerned about the appearance of safety than whether the bars actually made the place safer. Short of asking the owner, we are not likely to know with certainty. However, I used the word “implies,” rather than a stronger word (“demonstrates” “proves”) because I recognized that I was drawing an inference that might be wrong. Moreover, you have not mentioned whether or not you are factoring in the subsequent burglaries into your evaluation, and that would be helpful, in my view.

ETA
It is my understanding that the lower floor windows already had bars.

 

[Antony]

Wow. Is this thread(s) really still going on ?

As long as the injustice continues, there is still material for discussion. The current situation is that Italian justice is grinding its agonisingly slow progress through Amanda Knox's and Raffaele Sollecito's joint appeal against conviction, while they remain in jail (coming up to 3 1/2 years, just for helping the police).

Appeal court business so far has been that the only 2 pieces of DNA "evidence" against them have been shown by an independent lab to be worthless; and the lab is currently reviewing the procedures used to obtain this evidence, and is due to report this month. Also an eye-witness who claimed to have seen them in the vicinity of the murder house on the evening of the crime has been shown to have been referring to a different date.

Meanwhile, the prosecutor who conducted the investigation against them, Giuliano Mignini, is allowed to "advise" the prosecution side in the appeal, despite having been himself convicted of abuse of office in January 2010 in relation to a separate case. He is bringing a charge of slander against Amanda Knox, which is also due to be heard this month, merely for testifying that she was mistreated by police during an all-night interrogation which the police claim they did not record.

So Amanda and Raffaele have to endure continued incarceration during their appeal while the "evidence" against them disappears, while Mignini is permitted to continue to use his powers as prosecutor, pending his appeal against conviction for abusing these very powers!

 

[LondonJohn]

Wow. Is this thread(s) really still going on ?

Why would someone bother to press "send" on a post like this? If JREF members or visitors don't like to (or don't want to) read the thread(s) related to this case, then they're perfectly entitled to..... ya know..... not click on the link to the thread. Why should it matter to someone if this thread carries on for another 20 years?

Personally, I can't understand - for example - why there are still active threads on JREF discussing Moon landing hoaxes, but guess what I do about it? I simply avoid those threads: they don't interest me in the slightest, because I am pretty certain that the landings were real. I don't go there and post messages along the lines of "I can't believe this thread is still going". But, at the same time, neither do I care that they are still going: why should I care? If other people want to carry on that debate, then that's their prerogative and their business. It doesn't have to impact upon me in any way whatsoever.

If all the rest of Belz's 20,000+ posts on JREF are as illuminating or informative as this one, then I'll definitely be compiling my own personal anthology of his/her work

 

[CoulsdonUK]

CoulsdonUK,

Is it your position that people who believe that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent are like those who do not accept the official versions of JFK's or Princess Diana's death? If so, would you elaborate?

Halides1
My position is that Raffaele and Amanda’s appeal will determine the official verdict as to whether they along with Guede are culpable in Meredith’s murder. My point about JFK, Princess Diana or 9/11 for that matter is that people tend to believe what they choose to believe and as such there are people who accept the official versions and those who do not, regardless of the outcome of the appeal this will be the case with Raffaele and Amanda.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Birmingham Six

Halides1
My position is that Raffaele and Amanda’s appeal will determine the official verdict as to whether they along with Guede are culpable in Meredith’s murder. My point about JFK, Princess Diana or 9/11 for that matter is that people tend to believe what they choose to believe and as such there are people who accept the official versions and those who do not, regardless of the outcome of the appeal this will be the case with Raffaele and Amanda.

CoulsdonUK,
I am not aware of anyone's saying anything other than that Raffaele's and Amanda's fates are in the hands of the present jury (or professional and lay judges, if one prefers). I am certainly well aware of that fact. In other words your position is utterly noncontroversial as you have stated it. Do you believe otherwise?

As to your second point, there were doubtless those who believed in the original official version of events with respect to the Birmingham Six, that they were guilty and that the convictions were safe.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

CoulsdonUK,
I am not aware of anyone's saying anything other than that Raffaele's and Amanda's fates are in the hands of the present jury (or professional and lay judges, if one prefers). I am certainly well aware of that fact. In other words your position is utterly noncontroversial as you have stated it. Do you believe otherwise?

As to your second point, there were doubtless those who believed in the original official version of events with respect to the Birmingham Six, that they were guilty and that the convictions were safe.

Halides1

Birmingham six, Guildford four happened roughly 40 years ago, there have been changes just like in America to police interrogation procedures such as contemporaneous notes, audio and video recording. Nonetheless the context at the time was the Irish Republican Army (IRA) where waging a bombing campaign on mainland UK; indeed a Pub a couple of miles from where I live now was targeted Caterham Arms in 1975 merely because soldiers from the local barracks drank at the Pub. I find your attempt to draw comparisons between the Birmingham Six which occurred in the 1970’s in the UK with Meredith’s murder in Italy in 2007 bizarre.

Although I am aware of your stance on Guantanamo Bay, I am curious what are your views of Ruby Ridge, Waco or Oklahoma City bombings?

Do you believe there is a link to Raffaele and Amanda with Cavalese Cable Car incident (1998) or maybe the death of Nicola Calipari in Baghdad (2005), what was the official American position on these incidents?

 

[LondonJohn]

Halides1

Birmingham six, Guildford four happened roughly 40 years ago, there have been changes just like in America to police interrogation procedures such as contemporaneous notes, audio and video recording. Nonetheless the context at the time was the Irish Republican Army (IRA) where waging a bombing campaign on mainland UK; indeed a Pub a couple of miles from where I live now was targeted Caterham Arms in 1975 merely because soldiers from the local barracks drank at the Pub. I find your attempt to draw comparisons between the Birmingham Six which occurred in the 1970’s in the UK with Meredith’s murder in Italy in 2007 bizarre.

Although I am aware of your stance on Guantanamo Bay, I am curious what are your views of Ruby Ridge, Wacko or Oklahoma City bombings?

Do you believe there is a link to Raffaele and Amanda with Cavalese Cable Car incident (1998) or maybe the death of Nicola Calipari in Baghdad (2005), what was the official American position on these incidents?

The miscarriage cases of Barry George and Sally Clark (to name but two high-profile cases; there have been many others) are far more contemporaneous: the incidents for which they were originally convicted took place in 1999 and 1996-98 respectively. And there are dozens of miscarriages in the USA happening every year, right up to right now. Your argument about past v present doesn't therefore carry much water.

For all the problems with the US and UK criminal justice systems, they do seem more ready to admit their mistakes now than they have ever been - even though they still do seem to do so through clenched teeth (which is far from atypical reactionary behavior when failings in the work of one's own colleagues - and often mentors - have been demonstrated).

The Italian judiciary unfortunately seems to be lagging the UK and the US in confronting its own occasional lapses and inadequacies. Fortunately, I don't think this will ever become an issue in the Knox/Sollecito trial process, as I believe they are heading for acquittal in the first appeal trial. But if they were to remain convicted throughout the whole appeal process, I'm of the view that it would be very hard to ever reverse those verdicts - even if important new evidence came to light.

By the way, how did your gig go the other day?

 

[Belz...]

Why would someone bother to press "send" on a post like this?

Because I'm amazed that such a subject has been going on for so long. Longer, it seems, than Christophera's "realistice" thread.

But at least in that thread, you could easily tell which side of the debate had the BS, and which had the evidence.

Here, it seems no one has a clue what really transpired, but everybody's convinced that they do.

Why should it matter to someone if this thread carries on for another 20 years?

Why should it matter to you what matters to me ? Why did YOU click the "submit reply" button ?

why there are still active threads on JREF discussing Moon landing hoaxes

At least in those threads, there is definitive evidence to present and a final conclusion to reach.

If all the rest of Belz's 20,000+ posts on JREF are as illuminating or informative as this one, then I'll definitely be compiling my own personal anthology of his/her work

Ah, you're one of those. If the number of posts I've made intimidates you, that isn't my problem. I was making a comment on the endlessness and futility of this debate. No one is going to crack this case on this forum, no one is going to change their minds, and we don't have access to all the evidence we'd need to achieve those goals anyway. So why continue ?

 

[RoseMontague]

I was making a comment on the endlessness and futility of this debate. No one is going to crack this case on this forum, no one is going to change their minds, and we don't have access to all the evidence we'd need to achieve those goals anyway. So why continue ?

Several people have changed their minds about the case including me and another poster very recently. There is plenty of evidence out there and certainly enough to form an opinion. Most people are here discussing the case because they are interested in it, not because they think they are going to crack the case. Feel free to join in and give cracking the case a shot if that is what you think this discussion is all about. Who knows what might happen?

 

[Draca]

Ah, you're one of those. If the number of posts I've made intimidates you, that isn't my problem. I was making a comment on the endlessness and futility of this debate. No one is going to crack this case on this forum, no one is going to change their minds, and we don't have access to all the evidence we'd need to achieve those goals anyway. So why continue ?

News Alert for you. The case was actually 'cracked' ages ago. It is a simple case of a burglar surprised in a girls house and rape and murder resulting. He took her money, credit cards, phones and skipped the country. The timeline is narrowed down to the 8:51-53 p.m. arrival home of the girl and suspicious activity on her cell phones at 9:58 pm.

We additionally know several details of the attack itself. Her throat was first slit and then her clothes were removed and she was raped after being stabbed. The killer grabbed towels from the bathroom to stem the blood flow and left DNA on her purse. A time of death between 9:00 - 9:30 pm is consistent with the victim's stomach contents.


The who, how and why they convicted the wrong people for the murder is another matter .......

 

[Antony]

Halides1
My position is that Raffaele and Amanda’s appeal will determine the official verdict as to whether they along with Guede are culpable in Meredith’s murder.

That's not in contention. Why do think that posting platitudes is of any purpose?

My point about JFK, Princess Diana or 9/11 for that matter is that people tend to believe what they choose to believe and as such there are people who accept the official versions and those who do not,

Is this why the discussion of the evidence in this forum means nothing to you? Is it because you "choose" to accept the official version without examination of the evidence?

regardless of the outcome of the appeal this will be the case with Raffaele and Amanda.

You do us an injustice. The evidence-based view in this forum is exactly that, so we form our views because that is what the evidence tells us - it's not a matter of "choosing" not to accept the official version.