Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kevin_Lowe]

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

I would very much like to hear Quadraginta's explanation for that pile of flat glass pieces on the right hand side of the sill.

Maybe Amanda was Captain Amanda at just that moment and intuitively realised that to create a plausible staged scene of someone getting in through that window, they would have to break off some pieces of glass and put them there? A pity she was so incompetent at staying out of prison the rest of the time - if she had that level of criminal skill all the time she'd have gotten clean away with it.

 

[Kaosium]

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?

Heh, I know what that is. I just went through someone's posts elsewhere looking for something I didn't find, no doubt due to my erratic search methods and the fact my eyes glazed over numerous times reading them, perhaps I am allergic to Italian logic?

However it was really because reading them caused me to more fully realize something and become lost in thought: the 'logic' of the Italian courts is corrupt to the core. I've been saying that, but the more I read of a certain someone there, the more I realize how pervasive it is. It uses it as a straitjacket or roadblock rather than tool for enlightenment or rigidly proving a point as best as can be done. The rock throwing question 'logically invalidates' Pasquali's testimony under that system, much like the larcenous intestine testimony supposedly 'discredits' the lack of contents in the duodenum. It doesn't matter if it's true just if it's 'possible'--because then it can become probable. Because it has to, right? The jury voted guilty.


I betcha that's why Garafano sounds so clueless about real forensics, because he is. He doesn't have to know how to do it right. Real logic is the basis of forensics, they don't have to use it in their courts, and the one serves the other and becomes just as corrupt. The Polizia Scientifica blunders around like clodhoppers and grabs some stuff, some of which they do right, the rest they just don't bother with. They just assemble a steaming pile of offal, arrange it in a pattern, say it's 'possible indeed probable'--or some variation of that--enough times and it becomes so.

No wonder the guilt faction is so popular with people who can notice patterns without putting them into context. They've found validation for their methods!

 

[Draca]

A while back on the IIP Forum hazymoon did a great job describing how Amanda and Raffaele could have staged the bedroom:

hazymoon
Playing devil's advocate, I'm trying hard to put together a scenario that would include a staging and still fit the evidence. This is how I could see that happening, please point out any holes you see;

Knox and Sollecito toss the room, pulling clothes out of the wardrobe onto the floor. One of them runs outside and grabs the large rock.

They open Filomena's window and tug the outer green shutters closed until the swollen wood catches on the sill, (if they weren't left in this position already by Filomena).

Sollecito stands holding the window and it's wooden inner shade together in an open position not quite 90 degrees, perhaps more like 60.

Knox stands near the end of the desk to avoid being hit by the flying glass and tosses the rock, hitting the window at an oblique angle to the inner corner, which dents and pushes glass into the inner wooden shade in the position we see it.

The glass falls mostly beneath the window and on top of the piled clothing and the rock falls backward as well hitting the bag and crashing to the floor where small pieces break off.

Sollecito quickly pushes the window back toward the sill as he exits from behind the window and the remaining loose glass falls out onto the sill.

Knox picks up a piece or two of glass covered clothing and shakes it in the direction of the blue rug to simulate a window broken straight on from outside, then tosses the articles back on the pile (accounting for glass both on top of and underneath clothing).

They then push open the outer green shutters and leave the room.

"Sollecito stands holding the window and it's wooden inner shade together in an open position not quite 90 degrees, perhaps more like 60."

Massei pg 52
"under the shock of the large stone, because of the resistance of the inner shutter behind the window-pane (the shield effect as one might say), the pieces of glass would necessarily fall down on the windowsill both inside and outside (considering the casement as having being only slightly open, and thus the smashed pane positioned near to the windowsill)."

I like hazymoon's version better, but that is not what I am understanding Massei is saying. He doesn't say anyone is holding the inside shade still. If the rock is thrown without the inner shade being held wouldn't the rock hit it and force it to swing open toward the wardrobe with much of the glass following and falling on the clothes on the floor?

Massei pg 52 [41]
"As for the presence of glass in Romanelli's room, the violence of the blow, the characteristics of the glass (which was rather thin as indicated by Romanelli and Pasquali), the large rock used, and finally the shield effect caused by the inner shutter hanging half-open behind the glass pane [41] (a position of the inner shutter which corresponds to the scratch on it visible in the photos) give an adequate explanation of the distribution of the glass."

I don't find this to be true. If the rock hit the window and shade the rock for one thing would fall closer to the clothes not bounce backwards toward the bag. Then the glass would go toward the wardrobe and not toward the bedside table. A lot of the glass would be on top of Filomena's clothes. There wasn't any photographs of glass on top of these clothes. That would mean Amanda and Raffaele in staging would have pick up all the glass by the wardrobe and spread it around the room instead.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I think Massei is more convinced by the shards of glass still laying on the sill that were not swiped away by the intruder as he balanced there trying to open the window latch.

Balanced where? On the sill? No need of it. I'm pretty sure he had a foot on the grating below when unlatching the window.

Even if he came over via the planter wall he could have brushed them off with his foot before he stepped on or as he stepped on the sill as no doubt it would be pretty precarious standing on a shallow ledge almost 14 feet in the air with the added slipperiness of large pieces of broken glass underfoot.

Stepping through that window from the grating below is a simple matter of placing a single foot on the sill after he opened wide the window. In fact if didn't want to he could simply jump inside without touching the sill with his feet at all.

 

[Katody Matrass]

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]

Great observation! I'd add it's curious that the pieces on the outside sill are much larger and different then those on the room side of the sill.

 

[Katody Matrass]

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.

Mignini would have to crawl through. Guede simply jumped in.

 

[Rolfe]

I have no intention trying to change your or anyone else's opinion.

I asked a Q on the 'science' HERE and got no response (unsurprisingly) and actually responded to Fuji's post that was directed to you.

Indeed given that you are so convinced by arguments that I find by turn plainly ill-informed, mendacious, risible, chauvinistic (sometimes racist) and misogynistic* [and exhibit other features that I cant mention here] I'm not sure it would be possible should I even care to try.

As a result I can assure you I have absolutely no problem being on the other side of fence from you on this issue.

* This is a particularly charming example I came across while searching for another post recently where a poster had the 'idea' for a new thread exploring a sexual relationship between MK and one of the men [RG] convicted of her rape/murder unless comments about the vitriolic attacks on MKs father weren't discontinued.

Now where did you get the impression I'm "convinced"? Not from me, I can assure you.

However, when the posters who oppose your point of view spend time on the evidence and rational arguments, while you choose to spend time on personalities and irrelevancies, I think it's obvious which side I'll tend to favour.

News flash. There are fruitloops and weirdos on both sides of every high-profile discussion. I've found assertions of Megrahi's innocence on web sites promoting antivax woo and 9/11 "inside job" CTs. I should automatically conclude Megrahi is guilty because of that? I don't think so. ("Evidence that wouldn't hold up in a jay-walking charge", as one commentator put it.)

So telling me that there are nutbars and unpleasant people on the side of innocence in this case isn't really going to impress me a lot I have to say.

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.

Now this is the argument I find extremely compelling. Attempts to circumvent it all come over as special pleading. Oh, maybe Meredith had some sort of stomach pathology going on (which the post mortem report strangely failed to mention). Oh, maybe she was just as far off the curve as an eight-foot-tall man would be. Oh, maybe she didn't start to eat her dinner until much later than the witnesses estimated. And on one occasion, oh, maybe Rudy started to torture her at nine o'clock, her digestive processes halted with the shock, and were still halted when Amanda and Raffaele came by at half last eleven and instead of calling the cops and the ambulance, helped Rudy kill their friend.

Gimme a break.

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.

This hand-waving seems to be based on a total misconception. ".... it could take up to 7 hours for the meal to pass from the stomach...." Yes, it can take up to 7 hours for a meal to pass from the stomach, that is, for the stomach to empty completely. If Meredith's stomach had been found empty, then that's the time period we'd be talking about.

But Meredith's stomach was not found empty. It was found full.

It can take as much as four or five hours for a stomach to empty, going from when the emptying process begins, to when it ends. When it ends, the stomach is empty, and when a victim's stomach is found to be empty it is indeed reasonable to conclude that as much as seven hours may have passed since their last meal.

But before the emptying process begins, the stomach is full and the duodenum empty. This is the situation with Meredith. The end-point of stomach emptying, which is what Massei seems to be talking about here, is completely irrelevant. The time point which is relevant is the time when the stomach begins to empty, which under normal circumstances is 2 to 3 hours from the meal.

We have no reason to believe that Meredith's circumstances were not normal.

Rolfe.

 

[babycondor]

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]

I think Randy's scenario of the burglar (Guede) breaking those straight-edged pieces out of the frame and placing them on the sill in order to unlatch the window is very plausible.

AND, I wouldn't be surprised if the police themselves had piled the large pieces of glass on the left side of the sill in order to place the evidence tag (big "O") on the right.

As for the ground outside the window, the police themselves were photographed standing around on that ground during the investigation. The ground was covered with leaves. If any fragments of glass had fallen there, they would have been hard to spot even if anyone had seriously looked for them BEFORE the "staged break-in" theory was created...which search I don't think was done. I think in the early stages, everyone quite rationally assumed that the break-in was real, until it became necessary to invent a staged break-in to implicate AK and RS.

 

[quadraginta]

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

It wouldn't be if it was a big window, but it isn't. It's not like he would need to pick a place to stop sweeping. That's a tiny windowsill, not the deck of the QE2. He would have had to make a special effort to clear off much less than the whole thing.

 

[babycondor]

Here is an ongoing murder case with bizarre elements someone like Mignini would appreciate:

Tylar Marie Witt, testifying Wednesday against her former teen lover in the murder of her mother, said she was occupied by three personalities as she endured a tortured relationship with mother, Joanne M. Witt, and later plotted her killing.

She said there was Tylar herself, then an unsettled 14-year-old girl, and "Alex," her inner angel, and "Toby," a demon from hell who lurked "inside me."

"Three souls crowded in one body," Witt testified.

Composed and articulate, Witt testified in detail about her emotional condition and about the night she summoned Steven Paul Colver, then 19, to her gated El Dorado Hills home to kill her mother as she slept.

She faced Colver from the witness stand in a Placerville courtroom and described him stabbing her mother to death on June 12, 2009, as Tylar hovered just outside the door, so scared she said, "I put my hands on my ears, closed my eyes and hummed."

The riveting, daylong testimony by Witt, now 16, stoked both prosecution and defense theories of the murder of Joanne Witt, 47, who was attacked after she had handed over her daughter's diary to police as part of a statutory rape complaint against Colver.

Prosecutor Lisette Suder, who called Tylar Witt to the stand, contends Colver stabbed Joanne Witt at least 20 times and killed her with a gaping slash to the neck.

I thought it interesting that Tylar Witt describes standing outside the room, covering her ears, just like Amanda's imaginary vision of her imaginary presence at Meredith's murder.

 

[Dan O.]

It wouldn't be if it was a big window, but it isn't. It's not like he would need to pick a place to stop sweeping. That's a tiny windowsill, not the deck of the QE2. He would have had to make a special effort to clear off much less than the whole thing.

Sweeping the glass off the window sill is nothing but a straw-man argument that you and the guilter community are promoting. Why would any reasonable burglar intentionally draw attention to themselves by making unnecessary noise such as causing glass to break on the ground below?

 

[Kaosium]

Sweeping the glass off the window sill is nothing but a straw-man argument that you and the guilter community are promoting. Why would any reasonable burglar intentionally draw attention to themselves by making unnecessary noise such as causing glass to break on the ground below?

I think the better question is 'what stoned college kid would ever think of such a thing? Unless they were going through the window themselves, why would they clear the glass out and make a blank space?'

Where'd they get the experience in 'staging' break-ins so thoroughly? Why would they even bother if they left the door open?

They found them guilty of murder, the 'staged' break-in was just something Massei had to try to find an explanation for with truly limited 'evidence.'

However it's more 'evidence' than they had in the murder room for the two by far, which might explain its popularity in certain circles.

 

[quadraginta]

Sweeping the glass off the window sill is nothing but a straw-man argument that you and the guilter community are promoting. Why would any reasonable burglar intentionally draw attention to themselves by making unnecessary noise such as causing glass to break on the ground below?

Just because you don't happen to like or agree with a point which is being made doesn't mean it is a straw-man argument. I suggest you do a little research and learn what a straw-man argument actually is. The definition is relatively specific. That way you won't look quite so silly by making such inane comments.

Perhaps LJ can enlighten you. He seems to enjoy that sort of thing.

--------------------------------

I can't imagine why a burglar who has (in theory) just thrown an eight pound rock through a second story window glass and shutter beside a well lit street in the early evening (purportedly for the express purpose of making sufficient noise to alert any potential occupants) would be particularly concerned about the additional noise of a few glass fragments dropping onto damp, leaf strewn ground cover.

I'm sure you think there is a perfectly plausible reason.

I don't.

At that stage of the game such a burglar is going to be more concerned about getting the hell off the side of a wall which is in clear view of the road than in carefully stacking pieces of glass where they will only complicate his entry just to avoid the noise of some leaves rustling.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

Where'd they get the experience in 'staging' break-ins so thoroughly?

Who suggested that they did? Their failure to do so would seem to be part of the problem.

(@ Dan O. This is closer to a straw-man argument, if you are interested. Fabricating an argument which wasn't made because it is easier to attack than what has actually been said.)

Why would they even bother if they left the door open?

<snip>

Who knows? There isn't anything particularly unusual about someone trying to stage a break-in to deflect suspicion, nor is there anything particularly unusual about being caught at it.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

best evidence

Who suggested that they did? Their failure to do so would seem to be part of the problem.

Quadraginta,

Would you be willing to explain what are the most compelling pieces of evidence for a staged break-in to you? Thanks.

 

[pilot padron]

wishful thinking trolling,stirring the pot and thanks for stopping by

Sentence reduction. I expect to see about a 24 year reduction for Raffaele's appeal.

Unfounded, wildly optimistic expectations such as that must make Ms Bongiorno, that renowned Attorney whose client's stepmother flatters her skills by saying she "has 30 testicles", very happy indeed.

However, most well informed opposing readers might categorize it as little more than 'stirring the pot'.
Even reasonable posters favoring innocence might categorize it as little more than wishful thinking *at this stage*, but none the less probably enjoyed.

Elsewhere, it might even be deemed an unnecessarily incendiary troll like challenge, intended to disrupt not contribute, and become the first step toward that oft well earned here 'thanks for stopping by' citation.

 

[quadraginta]

Quadraginta,

Would you be willing to explain what are the most compelling pieces of evidence for a staged break-in to you? Thanks.

What's wrong with taking them as they come? I've never implied that anything is particularly compelling.

I'm familiar with the rhetorical technique you are trying to employ here. Boring.

I ain't playin' your game. Sorry.

 

[Rhea]

However, when the posters who oppose your point of view spend time on the evidence and rational arguments, while you choose to spend time on personalities and irrelevancies, I think it's obvious which side I'll tend to favour.

News flash. There are fruitloops and weirdos on both sides of every high-profile discussion. I've found assertions of Megrahi's innocence on web sites promoting antivax woo and 9/11 "inside job" CTs. I should automatically conclude Megrahi is guilty because of that? I don't think so. ("Evidence that wouldn't hold up in a jay-walking charge", as one commentator put it.)

So telling me that there are nutbars and unpleasant people on the side of innocence in this case isn't really going to impress me a lot I have to say.

I think that is an important point, of course there are weirdos and bad arguments or wrong assertions on both sides. Both sides would have to be wrong if that would constitute the side being wrong generally. But both can't be wrong …

That argument is often used against Steve Moore, Greg Hampikian or others by TJMK or PMF; they make an error, like Steve Moore saying "the burglary was considered staged because of glass being below the pile of clothes", then that is somehow prove for them that he is a nutcase and completely unreliable. Errors like that don't make everything wrong somebody says …

 

[lane99]

Dear JREFers -
I was hunting around the net and ran into yet another murder case, in which the police/prosecution may have went down the track, possibly convicting the wrong person...In this case, which occurred in Winnipeg, Canada, Prof. Zbigniew Mieczkowski was allegedly murdered by his wife, Dr. Ludmila Ilina...

...There was a "5th estate" TV show about this, but it doesn't seem to stream outside of Canada.

I wonder if this case has generated a pro-guilt/pro-innocence controversy around it as well.

Hi, souldonut. If you're interested (and have access to the broadcast) the "5th estate" episode you refer to is actually playing on CBC tv tonight.

I've previously seen it. Personally I don't find a lot of relevant similarities between this and the Kercher murder. What's alleged in the Winnipeg case- i.e. that a wife murdered her husband- does not require the fundamental suspension of disbelief that is necessary for the Migninny Three-Way Conspiracy in the Kercher case.

Based solely on what I saw on the "5th estate", I would hazard a guess that Ludmila Ilina is as likely as not to be responsible for the murder.

P.S. Note to the poster who coined the term "Migninny Three-Way":

Allow me to employ your pithy construction. And forgive me for forgetting now exactly whom I should be thanking for it.

 

[lane99]

I take it who 'worship at its altar' translates as have read or at least 'scanned' and understood.

But this may explain why 'we' come across so badly relative to normally intelligent people

Since it is otherwise not challenging language, I presume it will already have been understood by most. But for your benefit I'll clarify that is not how it translates.

So as far as your recognition that you not to come across well to intelligent people, I'm afraid it seems there must be some other explanation for that.