Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[spartacus]

Back to the Time of Death Issue.

In the Massei Report this important detail is glossed over and dismissed with hand waves in a way that is demonstrably false. It is known that it takes 2-3 hours for a meal to pass from the stomach into the duodenum, and the median time it takes for the meal to FIRST ARRIVE in the duodenum of 82 minutes (25%-75%, 65-102 minutes). In the case of Meredith, there was nothing in the duodenum. All three of the girls she had dinner with said that they ate at a pizza meal at about 6:00 pm Massei p 35-37, Motivazione 22-24), or 6:30 at the latest, since AFTER eating they watched a 123 minute long movie. After they left at 8:45 pm, which one of the friends is sure of since she wanted to get home to watch a TV show at 9:00 pm. It was a ten minute walk to Meredith’s house, and she was seen on CCTV near the house at about 8:55 pm. Shortly after that she made a call to her mother, which was cut off. The most probable explanation for this is that she called as soon as she got home and was attacked by Rudy Guede who had broken into her house a few minutes before (probable explanations are not favored by the Perugia court which favors the most improbable explanations, like sex game gone awry). 9:00 pm was at least 150 minutes after the start of her meal, so it is medically impossible for her to have died much later than this.


The conviction put the time of death at 11:30 pm in order to string together various “facts”. Massei did some hand waving about factors that could affect digestion and made the claim that it could take up to 7 hours for the meal to pass from the stomach. But this is plain wrong, no doctor would agree with this statement in a normal person. The time of death is flat out wrong.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

valuables

I seem to recall someone (possibly Fuji elsewhere) commenting to the effect that a lack of missing valuables was possible evidence of staging. I don't find that line of reasoning to apply universally. If a thief is looking only for money (or only drugs), he or she is not going to grab a camera, instead. With respect to this case, Guede has just had a major fail in his attempt to fence stolen items, and he had a need for rent money.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I'm sorry, but this is simplistic nonsense (your bolded statement).

You do not challenge my assertion ("if it can be conclusively determined that the crime scene at the cottage was staged, that fact alone - all by itself - is sufficient to establish a very high likelihood of her involvement in Meredith Kercher's murder"), because presumably you realize that any attempt to do so by reference to academic literature or expert opinion would be fruitless.

Instead, you attempt a sleight-of-hand by reference to the piece of intellectual wankery demonstrated in your citation, whose essence can be expressed as: "Knox and Sollecito were a priori extremely unlikely to have murdered Meredith. Because staging is in fact a very strong inidcator of guilt, it also is extremely unlikely to have occurred. The prosecution therefore has a very high burden of proof which they have not met to my [the original author's] satisfaction. Ergo, they are innocent." Complete bollocks.

Oh dear. This really is rather depressing. All this time spent trying to pound the basics of rational thought into the guilters' collective heads and this is still going on?

Fuji, the argument you just dismissed as "complete bollocks" is in fact entirely rational, apart from your misuse of the term a priori.

If A implies B, and we know that B is extraordinarily unlikely, then it follows that A is extraordinarily unlikely and we should demand very, very solid evidence for A before we believe it.

For example, suppose I told you I witnessed a miracle in which a man's severed head grew back of its own accord when I waved a Bible at it. Now if I am honest, sane and was not experiencing any abnormal state at the time I claimed to witness this, then miracles happen and that guy's head grew back. What does this imply about the probability that I am honest, sane and a reliable witness? If you are rational you will correctly intuit that the probability that I am not a knave or a fool is very low indeed.

As I have said here and elsewhere, for me, the strongest indicator of guilt is the staging. In the absence of nigh unimpeachable exculpatory evidence to the contrary, if the staging actually occurred, it would be sufficient on its own to be confident of the pair's guilt. Your own citation is in agreement with me on this point.)

The actual sleight of hand here is yours.

Firstly you focus with complete tunnel-vision on what you claim is "conclusive" evidence the crime scene was staged, ignoring for a moment that the crime scene is only staged in a scenario we have already established is so unlikely as to be completely ridiculous.

Then having established this "conclusive" position, that the scene was staged, you use this "conclusion" to ignore all of the other evidence on the basis that you have "proved" A and A implies B, so B must be true, so all evidence indicating -B can be immediately discounted.

This would work if A implied B, if you had evidence enough to establish something on the order of 99.999999999% certainty that the crime scene was staged. At that point you might start to have a mathematically sound argument for guilt.

However A doesn't imply B, and even if it did you don't even have 50% certainty the crime scene was staged. The attempts to show that the scene was staged by Massei and Mignini were laughable. Hendry has given a thorough explanation of how every piece of evidence they pretend supports the staging hypothesis in fact supports the lone wolf hypothesis as well or better.

So to sum up, A is incredibly improbable. You pretend you have conclusive proof of A but you have to ignore the low prior probability of A completely to even persuade yourself of this, and everyone else has noticed that you don't even have enough evidence to make A more likely than not.

Even if you had established A, A doesn't imply B. If the crime scene was staged Rudy Guede could have staged it, and while this is implausible it's less implausible than Knox and Sollecito staging it for reasons we just established.

 

[quadraginta]

There is plenty of room to the right side of the window sill to enter the room.

<snip>

I agree that there was sufficient room, for someone who was adept enough and tried hard enough. IOW, yes, it could be done.

I don't agree that there was "plenty" of room. We're looking at ~18-20 inches, max. Maybe less. This is a relatively small area of passage for an average adult crawling through a second story window.

None of which addresses why they would bother to in the first place. Why not just sweep it off of the sill with a simple arm motion instead of trying to climb through such a constricted space.

It don't figure.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Hendry's discussion of the break-in

Link here. Better reading than Massei.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I agree that there was sufficient room, for someone who was adept enough and tried hard enough. IOW, yes, it could be done.

I don't agree that there was "plenty" of room. We're looking at ~18-20 inches, max. Maybe less. This is a relatively small area of passage for an average adult crawling through a second story window.

None of which addresses why they would bother to in the first place. Why not just sweep it off of the sill with a simple arm motion instead of trying to climb through such a constricted space.

It don't figure.

This is a very weak hook from which to hang a very improbable hypothesis.

So what if your uninformed guess is that you'd have swept the glass off the sill if you had been the one breaking in by that window? Believe it or not it's not overwhelmingly likely to be true just because you guess that way.

Even if we accept for the sake of argument that the odds of Guede not sweeping the glass off were one in ten or something like that, it's not remotely strong enough evidence to justify the ridiculous hypothesis that Knox and Sollecito were involved somehow. That's like arguing "I don't think that's bear fur, therefore it is probably fur from Bigfoot".

 

[quadraginta]

This is a very weak hook from which to hang a very improbable hypothesis.

So what if your uninformed guess is that you'd have swept the glass off the sill if you had been the one breaking in by that window? Believe it or not it's not overwhelmingly likely to be true just because you guess that way.

Even if we accept for the sake of argument that the odds of Guede not sweeping the glass off were one in ten or something like that, it's not remotely strong enough evidence to justify the ridiculous hypothesis that Knox and Sollecito were involved somehow. That's like arguing "I don't think that's bear fur, therefore it is probably fur from Bigfoot".

No, it isn't.

Keep trying, though. You're fun to watch.

 

[Chris C]

No, Fuji is wrong. Neither he nor you (seemingly) understand the issue here. I will attempt (again) to explain:

1) The court in the Knox/Sollecito trial will make a completely independednt finding of facts, totally separate from the findings of fact in the Guede trials.

2) Some of these facts may tally with those from Guede's trials, and some may not.

3) The findings of fact from Guede's trials will in no way influence the findings of fact in the Knox/Sollecito trials: the Knox/Sollecito trials will reach findings of fact based purely on the direct evidence presented to it, the arguments of the lawyers for both sides, and the court's own arguments.

4) If the Knox/Sollecito trials reach findings of fact which tend to exonerate Guede (which they likely won't in any case*), this would enable Guede to apply for a further judicial review of his case.

5) Similarly, if Guede's trials had somehow exonerated Knox or Sollecito (they haven't), they could apply for a further judicial review if they were finally convicted.

6) The very fact that the Italian Code of Criminal Procedures allows for further appeals if different trials' findings of fact are contradictory is indication in itself that this not only can happen: it does happen sometimes.

7) My view is that the appeal court may well conclude that there is insufficient evidence that Knox and Sollecito were involved in the crime, but that there is sufficient evidence that Guede was involved (whether alone or as part of a group - this is not a matter upon which Knox's/Sollecito's court needs to make a ruling). If this happens, Knox and Sollecito will be acquitted and Guede will have no recourse to a further appeal. Case closed! (as some in Perugia are fond of saying....)

* If, for example, the Knox/Sollecito appeal court found that the murder was in fact carried out by Aviello's brother and his friend - and that none of Knox, Sollecito or Guede had been directly involved (which it won't find, but let's hypothesise for a moment...), then Guede would have the right to appeal his conviction.

Actually it really doesn't matter. If Knox/Sollecito walk, Guede's conviction will get overturned and Italy will have to retry him.

1. No murder weapon which was used against Guede
2. Untested samples such as the possible semen stain on the pillow
3. Improper handling of evidence and contamination. Bra clasp, Knife, bloody towels, mop,
4. Fake Break In performed by Knox but if she is innocent who committed the fake break in. Guede was gone already.
5. Prosecution claimed the scene was cleaned up after Guede left, if he wasn't there the real killers must have done it.
6. Bloody tissue outside the crime scene that doesn't link back to Knox, Sollecito, or Guede.
7. Car in drive way
8. Group murder involving Knox, Sollecito and Guede. Without out Knox and Sollecito the group murder sexual assault didn't happen, and thats what was argued in Guede's trial.

I'm sure you are seeing my point. If Knox/Sollecito's convictions are overturned, Guede's is surely to follow. The prosecution really screwed up the case trying to link Guede to Knox/Sollecito in both trials. Did Guede do it? I believe he committed the murder. Is his conviction flawed and probably will get overturned? Most likely. In reality Guede is convicted of atleast 1 crime he committed that being the murder. However false evidence was presented in his trial that is later proven to be false. And i don't care how you look at it, once the knife is tossed as the murder weapon, Guede no longer received a fair trial. Because the prosecution had to know that wasn't the murder weapon and used it anyway, knowing it didn't match the imprint or wounds.

 

[spartacus]

I believe it was shuttlt that also stated they have not yet read the Massei report. Personally, I like to read the documents that are available and read the Google translation of Massei before the PMF translation was done. Still, everything that is meaningful in the report has most likely been quoted here on several occasions and reading it will not reveal the super sekrit evidence for guilt or the photographs of the ground below the window.

I appreciate opinions from people regardless if they have read the report or not.

I have read most of the Massei Report both in the original and in the PMF translation. I think that the PMF translation is a good one. There is only one instance of a fudged translation that has already been pointed out. If anyone has a dispute with the PMF translation and wants a non-pro-guilt second opinion feel free to pass it along.

 

[RandyN]

Where, might I ask, are you getting your information from? It's my understanding that under the Italian legal system their is no further appeal after the Supreme Court.

Ahhh but your understanding would be wrong grasshopper. In fact the case Judge Hellmann is most famous for is just such a case where as a member of a 3 judge panel he helped overturn a Supreme Court confirmation.


After three years in jail, during which time she has been variously described as a she-devil and an innocent abroad, Amanda Knox was led into court in Perugia this morning (above) for the start of an appeal hearing into her conviction for murder.

The 23-year-old Seattle student and her former Italian boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito have been in jail since November 6, 2007 - four days after Meredith Kercher was discovered half-naked in a pool of blood in the house she and Knox shared in Perugia, where both were exchange students.

Last December, Knox and Sollecito were found guilty of murder after the prosecution successfully painted a picture of an orgy of sex and drugs which ended with Knox slitting her friend's throat with a kitchen knife.

Knox's lawyers were unable to persuade the court that she and Sollecito were not even present on the night Meredith was killed. Now the lawyers are pinning their hopes of a reprieve on three factors:

First, that they can persuade the judge and jury that the DNA evidence used to convict Knox was suspect and that there was no motive for hert to attack or kill her friend;

Second, that new witnesses will be allowed to be called in an effort to prove that Knox and Sollecito were not at the house;

Third, that the recent decision to replace the original judge due to hear the appeal with a new man, Claudio Pratillo Hellmann, will work in their favour.

Italian judicial authorities have said that the decision late last month to bring in Judge Hellmann instead of Judge Sergio Matteini Chiari was "an administrative issue".

But Knox's supporters are aware that Hellmann has a reputation for making radical judgments.

In 2000, he was one of a three-man court that famously overturned the conviction of the supposed wife murderer, Massimo Pisano. He spent seven and a half years in jail, losing appeal after appeal, until Hellman and his fellow judges freed him.

Judge Hellmann, sitting with a magistrate and six-person jury, will be urged by Knox's lawyers to see that the murder verdict was based on mere hypotheses.

The lawyers will argue that the police investigation rested on an assumption that Knox and Sollecito were guilty, and that the court made the same mistake.

Today's hearing was expected to deal mainly with procedural matters and to be adjourned to the second week of December.


And some more here....


Family and supporters of Knox and Sollecito have been arguing that the pair'sc onvictions were the result of judicial error, and that the only true killer is Guede.

The new judge assigned to Knox's case is no stranger to allegations of judicial error. In fact, he was one of three judges who, in 2000, overturned a controversial conviction in the stabbing murder of Cinzia Bruno, setting free a man who had been jailed for more than seven years.

Bruno's husband, Massimo Pisano, was convicted along with his lover in the stabbing death of Bruno, who was found in 1993 on the banks of the Tiber River, near Rome. He was sentenced to life in prison, a ruling upheld in all three phases of Italian court process, including the Supreme Court.

Then, a "revision" of the case by a three-man court of appeals panel, including Pratillo Hellman, freed Pisano after he had already served seven years, six months and 12 days behind bars.

The Bruno case is, of course, no indicator of how Pratillo Hellman might approach Knox's case. However, it shows a willingness to go against the judicial grain that is likely to please hopeful Knox supporters.

The new judge's initial approach to the case will become clear on the very first day of the trial, when he will have to decide a variety of issues, such as whether or not witnesses and evidence should be reheard or introduced.

In recent weeks, Italy's center-right prime minister Silvio Berlusconi (himself facing numerous legal accusations) has charged that there is corruption among magistrates and has pushed for drastic changes in the judicial system that has sharply divided the already fragile governing coalition.

Some have suggested an Umbrian politician from Berlusconi's party is using the high-profile Knox case to exemplify the need for reform -- a political development that would throw another wrench into an already complicated and controversial case.

I know ....only in Italy

 

[RandyN]

I believe you said:



They might increase the sentences but not because of the knife being carried for protection nonsense. The prosecution is not appealing on that. It was this part of your post I was referring to.

The alleged carrying of the knife was not even mentioned in Massei as a mitigating factor. Instead it contributed to adding an extra year on to Amanda's sentence.

Yes this is exactly correct. Amanda Knox was given an extra year for carrying a knife to a un-premeditated murder. And yet somehow people trust in Massei. And those same people wonder why some others snicker.

 

[platonov]

Oh dear. This really is rather depressing. All this time spent trying to pound the basics of rational thought into the guilters' collective heads and this is still going on?
Fuji, the argument you just dismissed as "complete bollocks" is in fact entirely rational, apart from your misuse of the term a priori.

If A implies B, and we know that B is extraordinarily unlikely, then it follows that A is extraordinarily unlikely and we should demand very, very solid evidence for A before we believe it.

For example, suppose I told you I witnessed a miracle in which a man's severed head grew back of its own accord when I waved a Bible at it. Now if I am honest, sane and was not experiencing any abnormal state at the time I claimed to witness this, then miracles happen and that guy's head grew back. What does this imply about the probability that I am honest, sane and a reliable witness? If you are rational you will correctly intuit that the probability that I am not a knave or a fool is very low indeed.
The actual sleight of hand here is yours.
Firstly you focus with complete tunnel-vision on what you claim is "conclusive" evidence the crime scene was staged, ignoring for a moment that the crime scene is only staged in a scenario we have already established is so unlikely as to be completely ridiculous.

Then having established this "conclusive" position, that the scene was staged, you use this "conclusion" to ignore all of the other evidence on the basis that you have "proved" A and A implies B, so B must be true, so all evidence indicating -B can be immediately discounted.

This would work if A implied B, if you had evidence enough to establish something on the order of 99.999999999% certainty that the crime scene was staged. At that point you might start to have a mathematically sound argument for guilt.

However A doesn't imply B, and even if it did you don't even have 50% certainty the crime scene was staged. The attempts to show that the scene was staged by Massei and Mignini were laughable. Hendry has given a thorough explanation of how every piece of evidence they pretend supports the staging hypothesis in fact supports the lone wolf hypothesis as well or better.
So to sum up, A is incredibly improbable. You pretend you have conclusive proof of A but you have to ignore the low prior probability of A completely to even persuade yourself of this, and everyone else has noticed that you don't even have enough evidence to make A more likely than not.
Even if you had established A, A doesn't imply B. If the crime scene was staged Rudy Guede could have staged it, and while this is implausible it's less implausible than Knox and Sollecito staging it for reasons we just established.

Without getting into the nonsensical 'broken window perplexity' again (I'm surprised certain posters keep coming back to it) or the various 'statistical arguments' revolving around the belief that 'cute white chicks' don't commit crimes [its extraordinarily unlikely apparently] but (black) drifters do and conscious of the fact that to to use these terms about another poster would be in breach of the MA, you seem to have missed another possibility there from a purely 'logical' perspective.

It is possible for a hypothetical 'I' to be both a knave and a fool.

Needless to say (well not on this thread) staging on its own doesn't convict a fellow tenant (or somebody with access to the property) but it's of high probative value thus the increasingly* desperate arguments against it.

* And lets not forget where these arguments started from - the throwing of the rock out through the window . That 'Massei' is indeed impenetrable, Hendry or Science Spheres is so much more accessible to the logician

 

[platonov]

Yes this is exactly correct. Amanda Knox was given an extra year for carrying a knife to a un-premeditated murder. And yet somehow people trust in Massei. And those same people wonder why some others snicker.

Not quite - are my posts as complex and impenetrable as this 'Massei' or are they invisible as some lurkers claim ?

I assure you I never snicker.

 

[Draca]

I agree that there was sufficient room, for someone who was adept enough and tried hard enough. IOW, yes, it could be done.

I don't agree that there was "plenty" of room. We're looking at ~18-20 inches, max. Maybe less. This is a relatively small area of passage for an average adult crawling through a second story window.

None of which addresses why they would bother to in the first place. Why not just sweep it off of the sill with a simple arm motion instead of trying to climb through such a constricted space.

It don't figure.

It's not that I don't understand that it would make sense for a burglar to wipe the sill first. But I don't think it is at all unreasonable if they didn't.

All that is required is for there to be room for both of his hands on the sill as he hoists himself up. There is plenty of room for that. He then swings his legs in quickly. If he swung his legs in over the right hand side of the window they might clear that side of the window sill of glass but not the left hand side. Hoist up with both hands on the sill, swing legs up and in over the right hand side of the window. There is almost no glass on the right hand side of the sill and there was glass on the floor. It also drags glass into the room without knocking it outside. I see this as a reasonable break-in scenario. I think that is exactly what happened.

 

[Kaosium]

I agree that there was sufficient room, for someone who was adept enough and tried hard enough. IOW, yes, it could be done.

I don't agree that there was "plenty" of room. We're looking at ~18-20 inches, max. Maybe less. This is a relatively small area of passage for an average adult crawling through a second story window.

None of which addresses why they would bother to in the first place. Why not just sweep it off of the sill with a simple arm motion instead of trying to climb through such a constricted space.

It don't figure.

What if that's simply what's left as he came through, the rest spilling to the floor underneath the window that he 'swept' there? He's not exactly a broom.

 

[RandyN]

There is plenty of room to the right side of the window sill to enter the room.

For that matter, where is the proof of staging. If they staged the window, why didn't they sprinkle glass along the the whole sill ? Why did glass only land on the right hand side after they threw the rock from the inside?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_401664de847205a6af.jpg[/qimg]

This is a great photo. If you zoom in on it you will see that most of the glass laying on the left there is glass that comes from the outer edge of the broken window. Imagine putting a puzzle together...you first look for all the pieces with a straight edge. These "straight edge" pieces are what you see laying on the sill. Now, how do you suppose just these outside straight edge pieces (mostly anyway) got there? Magic? Gravity? Or did someone put them there?
If yes then who and if who then why? Answer this and you will find the true murderer.

3 guesses and the first two dont count.

 

[RandyN]

They should have mentioned it. Raffaele also should have mentioned he stayed up all night with his laptop (as the defense claims is proved by the computer records) while Amanda slept (because none of her stories contained this all night video watching/surfing? detail) but this would have contradicted his story to the police that Amanda could have left while he was sleeping (which he wasn't if you believe computer records show that).
Raffaele should have testified to their alibi, he didn't. That was a mistake given the evidence (and make of that what you will) presented in terms of phone and computer records as well as Amanda's own testimony which did not describe their night this way. What exactly was a jury to make of this?

Oh please let me guess?....

In the appeal the defense will mention that since RS had his Masters thesis due shortly... and being a more regular hash smoker he was less affected and so he perhaps plunked out an outline while puffing down an extra doobie. After which he put on some tunes and crawled into bed with the snoring AK.

Rose...got a citation on that snoring thing?

 

[Kaosium]

Not quite - are my posts as complex and impenetrable as this 'Massei' or are they invisible as some lurkers claim ?

I assure you I never snicker.

Platonov, something just occurred to me thanks to a recent discussion. I took logic in college a long time ago, I remember the concepts but not the names. Don't you realize all that Massei entails is a post-hoc rationalization, and a piss-poor one at that? I call it bilge, as that's generally impenetrable to enlightenment as well.

That's how you can have two different times of death, and why Rudy's trial doesn't really matter in regards to Amanda and Raffaele's. The 'logic' of the Italian Courts is nothing but ponderous sophistry, which is why I recoil from it in horror, yet apparently can't get that across to those who appear to have memorized the names of all these fallacies but didn't quite grasp what they mean.

 

[RandyN]

It's not that I don't understand that it would make sense for a burglar to wipe the sill first. But I don't think it is at all unreasonable if they didn't.

All that is required is for there to be room for both of his hands on the sill as he hoists himself up. There is plenty of room for that. He then swings his legs in quickly. If he swung his legs in over the right hand side of the window they might clear that side of the window sill of glass but not the left hand side. Hoist up with both hands on the sill, swing legs up and in over the right hand side of the window. There is almost no glass on the right hand side of the sill and there was glass on the floor. It also drags glass into the room without knocking it outside. I see this as a reasonable break-in scenario. I think that is exactly what happened.

Actually...its not as difficult as even that. When standing on the top most bar of the lower window as a person say...6' 1" tall... lets call him Rudy for example. Rudy would be at arm pit height with the sill.

Spoiler alert...I now ruin the riddle. Rudy can comfortably lean on this sill and pick the broken glass that remains in the bottom and sides of the window...those pieces held there by friction and gravity...those pieces that would all have FLAT EDGES! He could have tossed them inside but wait the window was only broken and not yet unlatched. So he piled these pieces neatly on the left side of the sill.

No stager would do this. In fact this is the only possible way to explain these flat edge glass pieces being there. Nothing else works. No shutter position, no rock from inside...nothing except for the truth. Rudy threw a rock through the window. He climbed up there and removed these outer glass pieces and placed them on the sill to his right. It is correct and proper that he does this because he must shift slightly to his left to avoid snagging on a rusty nail that protrudes from the wall. He reaches through the broken window free and clear from sharp protruding glass that he so carefully removed ...and he opens the latch and swings both windows inward.

This is so easy I could do it blindfolded. I figure about 60-75 seconds max.


Massei asked the defense ballistics expert if he was a rock throwing expert. I wonder if that was an attempt at humor by him? He never asked the prosecutions expert any questions...oh wait...they didn’t have an expert. Mignini asked us to assume. Doesn’t that make an ass out of u and me?

 

[Draca]

Actually...its not as difficult as even that. When standing on the top most bar of the lower window as a person say...6' 1" tall... lets call him Rudy for example. Rudy would be at arm pit height with the sill.

Spoiler alert...I now ruin the riddle. Rudy can comfortably lean on this sill and pick the broken glass that remains in the bottom and sides of the window...those pieces held there by friction and gravity...those pieces that would all have FLAT EDGES! He could have tossed them inside but wait the window was only broken and not yet unlatched. So he piled these pieces neatly on the left side of the sill.

Hi RandyN,

I agree with this theory, but after the inside window was opened in the manner you say, the question from quad is why the whole sill wasn't wiped clear before entry. My answer is that to enter the window he only needed to be able to place both hands on the sill and hoist himself up an in with his legs going toward the right. That it is not unreasonable that he wouldn't clear the whole window if he didn't need to.

Draca