Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Danceme]

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.

You don't think his legs might hit the wall? It seems impossible to me that this scenario was the one used. There's too little width to allow a swinging of the legs.

In fact if didn't want to he could simply jump inside without touching the sill with his feet at all.

Hence the use of the term "spiderman" way back when

 

[Rolfe]

Any statement that the judges got it right is an argument from authority and being a sheeple in spite if the fact that the judges are the authority.

Any statement that a court verdict unarguably reflects objective truth is simply mindless. You can use the word sheeple if you want.

Judges and juries are fallible human beings like everybody else. They can be mistaken. They can be prejudiced. Or the truth can be the victim of the legal process, where admissibility and legal hair-splitting count for more than fact or logic.

We know for a fact that wrongful convictions occur. We can all reel off lists of people who were acquitted on appeal. Many of these people were the subject of discussions just like this before the appeal verdicts were announced. Court verdicts don't determine reality, and reality doesn't change because a verdict is overturned.

Justice is also supposed to be open and transparent. It should be possible for any reasonable person to understand why a particular verdict was reached, and why guilt was believed to be "beyond reasonable doubt". It's not an article of faith, you know. If it appears to many observers that there is indeed reasonable doubt, I would submit that something is wrong.

So yes, if you are simply stating that because a court decided something was so, then it unquestionably was so in reality, you are being a sheeple. If you can explain rationally why you believe the court verdict was indeed correct, then that's different of course. But a faith-based assertion of judicial infallibility is no more reasonable than a faith-based assertion of papal infallibility.

Rolfe.

 

[Danceme]

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

Interesting no one had a comment on Hazymoon's scenario Draco posted. It's very plausible for a scenario describing a faked breakin and staging. I'm always struck by people here constantly requesting write-ups like this for the evidence which could support guilt then either simply ignoring them without exploring the ideas or quickly changing the subject.
The belief in innocence is so entrenched that the idea of Rudy catapulting himself in through a narrow, glass strewn opening from either of two equally difficult positions is expounded upon ad nauseum with all and sundry agreeing to it's ease, and a simple scenario such as this doesn't even garner a comment. Not even a dismissal.

 

[Danceme]

It's not that I am agreeing this is how it happened, it's just a scenario that certainly works as well as one involving Rudy. The only reason not to see it is if convinced of innocence by other evidence and not because you think a staged breakin is impossible.

 

[Kaosium]

If the break in was faked then someone did it, Amanda's accusation of Patrick proves she thought the break in was faked.

Amanda didn't accuse Patrick, the cops convinced her she must have been there when Patrick did it. It looks like they came to almost an immediate assumption someone staged the break-in, that became Amanda because they thought some of her behavior 'suspicious.' So they put the screws to her until they got what they wanted, which actually wasn't much of anything as far as a 'confession' goes and even less as an 'accusation.'

Instead of dismissing references to the Scazzi case as unworthy of disrupting your reading of this thread, perhaps you should have paid more attention to them. This is an environment where the police can come up with just about any idiot-ass theory they want, force 'confessions' in backrooms, arrest someone and tell the press a ridiculous tale which they don't question but then help look for more 'evidence' to convict them. It then goes to the courts where if the police and prosecutor think something happened odds are they can get it through the first trial at the very least.

If I could read Italian I'd try to find out how many 'unique' examples of 'criminal' behavior had 'occurred' in Italy in recent years. These are ghost stories, Tsig, crimes so bizarre on such scant evidence they require a suspension of disbelief to even entertain, and a desire to maintain. On some level people have to want to believe them, and it appears in Italy these days that's not uncommon. It also seems they might be appealing to prejudice, in these two cases against women.

What makes you want to believe Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy raped and murdered Meredith Kercher and then 'staged' a break in, when the sequence of events and actual evidence along with the fact Rudy was a break-in artist reveal there's a far higher probability Rudy did it himself?

 

[babycondor]

It's not that I am agreeing this is how it happened, it's just a scenario that certainly works as well as one involving Rudy. The only reason not to see it is if convinced of innocence by other evidence and not because you think a staged breakin is impossible.

I disagree with your statement that "it works as well as one involving Rudy."

hazymoon's scenario accounts for the evidence all right (albeit by a somewhat tortuous exercise of imagination), but it fails on grounds of common sense and parsimony (Occam's Razor: Rudy was a breakin artist, Rudy probably broke in.)

 

[Kestrel]

What makes you want to believe Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy raped and murdered Meredith Kercher and then 'staged' a break in, when the sequence of events and actual evidence along with the fact Rudy was a break-in artist reveal there's a far higher probability Rudy did it himself?

Probably the same logic used by the Perugia authorities. They decided shortly after the murder that Amanda was guilty. From that point on, all evidence was viewed through the filter that Amanda must be guilty. A break in didn't make sense if Amanda was guilty, therefore the break in must be fake. A footprint on a bath mat shaped like Rudy's foot doesn't help prove Amanda's guilt, therefore it must be Raffaele's.

It started with a theory of guilt followed by an investigation looking only for evidence that fit that theory.

 

[Danceme]

Babycondor, you are certainly entitled to disagree, although if you find this scenario "tortuous" then I fail to see how you can find one involving Rudy's gymnastics not equally as tortuous.
As far as I can remember, Rudy's previous break ins involved climbing balcony railings, just like the one to the kitchen window at the cottage.

 

[Kaosium]

Probably the same logic used by the Perugia authorities. They decided shortly after the murder that Amanda was guilty. From that point on, all evidence was viewed through the filter that Amanda must be guilty. A break in didn't make sense if Amanda was guilty, therefore the break in must be fake. A footprint on a bath mat shaped like Rudy's foot doesn't help prove Amanda's guilt, therefore it must be Raffaele's.

It started with a theory of guilt followed by an investigation looking only for evidence that fit that theory.

That certainly seems to be what happened, but what I'm wondering is what motivates that desire to twist the evidence so it fits with the 'theory,' amongst both the police and the people who believed it happened and have spent any length of time discussing it or reading about it.

I use a movie as a model in my mind to try to keep track of the sequence of events and behavior of the participants, to make sense of it all. Some seem to want that 'movie' to resemble a Fellini film, I was just curious why that is.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>


I don't claim that this is how Rudy actually entered the window. All I am saying is that this is one possibility and we only need one to say that entry through the window is not excluded.

What do we need to say that a reasonable person would not think it likely that such an event actually happened in this instance?

A lot hinges on this pesky term, "reasonable". Or "likely", for that matter.

In real life there are many things which are impossible to totally exclude in absolute terms. To function with any practical usefulness we have to be able to exclude some events based on our judgement of their likelihood. I think that the conjectures we have seen offered in these threads concerning possible ways that someone could have climbed through that window without disturbing that glass have amounted to little more than red herrings.

YouTube videos of the acrobatics of amateur athletes notwithstanding.

Yes, that is my own opinion, which seems to amount to some sort of indictment against me among certain circles. In the final regard I can only be left with my own opinion, tempered by my experience and the knowledge garnered from researching available evidence. This is so true as to amount to a truism, but it is equally true of those whose opinions differ with mine.

In real life reasonable people can arrive at different conclusions based on the same data in many circumstances. All things are not based on quantifiable information which can be subject to disproof. That doesn't mean that either are necessarily wrong, it just means that they do not agree.

quadraginta's swag on the window opening is remarkably close. My own measurements set the casement opening at .78m with a .04m inset for the frame.

Thanks for that, anyway.

I used the MK1 Eyeball, and the experience gained from a career as a professional builder. It was an opinion. (An educated one.)



I deemed it close enough to support the conclusions I have drawn. Extra decimal places would not have had any significant impact on those conclusions. If evidence were offered that I was mistaken to any meaningful degree I would cheerfully reconsider.

 

[Chris C]

How do you know when any of these women were hungry? Personally I wouldn't eat dinner at 4pm but who would not want/get a snack/treat when coming over at 4 when dinner wasn't goint to be until 5:30-6:30?

Because they said when they ate. They gave testimony to that effect. So obviously they were hungry. Meredith still had pizza in her stomach at her time of death so obviously she ate at what time was testified to. From tracing the events of the night with her friends you can easily conclude at what time she ate even if they didn't know the exact time. They ate, watched a movie had a short break in the middle for dessert, finished the movie and left at 8:45. Knowing the movie is 2 hours long and they left at 8:45 you should easily be able to conclude the latest possible time to have finished eating would be 6:45. Thats not subtracting the pause in the movie for dessert or anytime they stood around talking at the end of the movie. Considering they still teach math in school, I don't understand whats so hard about figuring out what the latest possible time they ate using the testimony given by Meredith's friends. The fact that you are trying to move the eating time of the pizza past 7pm is an act of desperation. Regardless of whether Knox/Sollecito were involved or not involved in Meredith's murder she clearly was dead before 10pm.

Though from your new argument you have cleary conceded that the coroner did the autopsy correctly and that his estimation of 2 to 3 hours is correct.

 

[Kaosium]

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

The amount of time and effort they expended to make it look like a staged break-in so that it would fool an accident reconstruction expert like Ron Hendry is remarkable considering all they had to do if they wanted to make it 'real' was go through the process of throwing the rock through the window and having someone climb in. Amanda was a rock climber, Raffaele might have been able to do it to. Even if not, if they wanted to simulate it all they would have had to do is get something to stand on, a helluva lot easier than just about any theory of the staged break-in I've seen.

(@ 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.)

I was just throwing out additional possibilities, not really making an argument. I do that sometimes.

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.

While I don't believe the 'reconstruction' in Massei in the realm of reasonable possibility, a scenario like Hazymoon contributed could probably be constructed to make it actually fit the evidence and not break any physical laws. However it would be a real pain in the ass compared to just simulating it naturally as above. Wouldn't Occam's Razor apply?

 

[Danceme]

The amount of time and effort they expended to make it look like a staged break-in so that it would fool an accident reconstruction expert like Ron Hendry is remarkable considering all they had to do if they wanted to make it 'real' was go through the process of throwing the rock through the window and having someone climb in. Amanda was a rock climber, Raffaele might have been able to do it to. Even if not, if they wanted to simulate it all they would have had to do is get something to stand on, a helluva lot easier than just about any theory of the staged break-in I've seen.

I was just throwing out additional possibilities, not really making an argument. I do that sometimes.

While I don't believe the 'reconstruction' in Massei in the realm of reasonable possibility, a scenario like Hazymoon contributed could probably be constructed to make it actually fit the evidence and not break any physical laws. However it would be a real pain in the ass compared to just simulating it naturally as above. Wouldn't Occam's Razor apply?

They could have gotten a chair or a ladder but I suppose that would raise some serious red flags to a passerby, nix that idea!
They could have tried to climb in themselves but they might have gotten cut, leaving blood and DNA, or they might have snagged fibers from their clothes, nix that idea too!
It would be a real pain in the ass, as you say, to simulate the break in naturally and be seen or leave evidence. What stager in their right mind would even conceive of going outside to try and climb the wall if they had just committed murder? No way! They would remain behind closed shutters and away from view and do the best they could to make the break in look real.

 

[Kaosium]

They could have gotten a chair or a ladder but I suppose that would raise some serious red flags to a passerby, nix that idea!

It was dark.

They could have tried to climb in themselves but they might have gotten cut, leaving blood and DNA, or they might have snagged fibers from their clothes, nix that idea too!

How about they use the same levitating hazmat suits they did for the murder?

Incidentally, do you think either of them were involved in the struggle that led to Meredith's death? I don't think it's required of someone arguing guilt and Mignini intimated in his CNN interview that might be what he argues.

It would be a real pain in the ass, as you say, to simulate the break in naturally and be seen or leave evidence. What stager in their right mind would even conceive of going outside to try and climb the wall if they had just committed murder? No way! They would remain behind closed shutters and away from view and do the best they could to make the break in look real.

They had to leave the premises anyway, how much extra time do you suppose it would have taken for one of the two college kids, both in decent shape and Amanda an athlete, to climb up a wall and into the window?

 

[Danceme]

It was dark.

Incidentally, do you think either of them were involved in the struggle that led to Meredith's death? I don't think it's required of someone arguing guilt and Mignini intimated in his CNN interview that might be what he argues.

I really don't know if they were involved, it's actually what keeps me reading here. I am most convinced of innocence by the time of death arguments and believe the defense should concentrate its efforts there, but i can't entirely discount the full body of evidence either. That may be a contradiction but there it is.

 

[Antony]

I really don't know if they were involved, it's actually what keeps me reading here. I am most convinced of innocence by the time of death arguments and believe the defense should concentrate its efforts there, but i can't entirely discount the full body of evidence either. That may be a contradiction but there it is.

What does this "body of evidence" constitute, as you understand it?

 

[Danceme]

What does this "body of evidence" constitute, as you understand it?

Good lord Antony, I'm certainly not interested in rehashing every argument that's ever taken place here, because that is what it'll come to. You've been present anyway so you shouldn't have to ask such silly questions.
Suffice it to say there is, for me at least, enough of the inexplicable to doubt both innocence and guilt. Therefore I am undecided.
I said the time of death arguments were the most convincing for innocence, yet I suspect there is something wrong with these arguments or the defense would only have this to argue and the appeal would be assured. Bring in several experts to testify on stomach contents, lag time, and so on, and the rest should be history, based on the level of conviction about this demonstrated here time and again. And we can't say the defense just didn't think of this because we have the good family friend Charlie Wilkes here to convey the brilliant discovery. So what could be wrong with it? Why are they wasting time on DNA?

 

[Mary_H]

Interesting no one had a comment on Hazymoon's scenario Draco posted. It's very plausible for a scenario describing a faked breakin and staging. I'm always struck by people here constantly requesting write-ups like this for the evidence which could support guilt then either simply ignoring them without exploring the ideas or quickly changing the subject.
The belief in innocence is so entrenched that the idea of Rudy catapulting himself in through a narrow, glass strewn opening from either of two equally difficult positions is expounded upon ad nauseum with all and sundry agreeing to it's ease, and a simple scenario such as this doesn't even garner a comment. Not even a dismissal.

I disregarded hazymoon's scenario on the basis of how much energy and knowledge it would take. Given what we know about Amanda and Raffaele, I don't believe there is any way they could accidentally have killed someone and gone into complex cover-up mode instead of just summoning help immediately. If, by some bizarre combination of events, they were involved in a bloody, hands-on assault of a friend, they would have broken themselves into full confessions before the day was out. Even experienced criminals find it hard to keep secrets like that for very long.

 

[Rolfe]

I said the time of death arguments were the most convincing for innocence, yet I suspect there is something wrong with these arguments or the defense would only have this to argue and the appeal would be assured. Bring in several experts to testify on stomach contents, lag time, and so on, and the rest should be history, based on the level of conviction about this demonstrated here time and again. And we can't say the defense just didn't think of this because we have the good family friend Charlie Wilkes here to convey the brilliant discovery. So what could be wrong with it? Why are they wasting time on DNA?

Good point, but sometimes it really is that simple. If wool has been systematically pulled over many eyes about the stomach emptying timing, the defence may not really understand how clear cut it is.

Another thing to bear in mind is that the defence has to cover all the bases even if they think they have a killer argument in one point. They may believe the time of death is a sure thing, but suppose for some reason, the court fails to understand, and finds against them on that point? It can happen. They'd look awful stupid in that case if they'd put all the eggs in one basket.

I've heard a lot of special pleading trying to stretch the time of Meredith's death well beyond nine o'clock. But the fact remains, it's special pleading. What is the compelling reason why we have to consider wild improbabilities to allow Meredith to have died much later, when the stomach contents and Meredith's known movements all agree that around nine o'clock is the obvious time of death?

I haven't heard anything. We know of no sighting of her alive after that time. There's nothing inside the flat that shows she was alive and doing stuff after that time. There's no hermetically sealed zone that we know a murderer couldn't have penetrated at around that time. Why do we have to consider stomach pathology, or that her friends were wildly mistaken about the time of the meal, or a prolonged torture session, to allow the ToD to be later? We don't, as far as I can see.

Rolfe.

 

[NewtonTrino]

Good point, but sometimes it really is that simple. If wool has been systematically pulled over many eyes about the stomach emptying timing, the defence may not really understand how clear cut it is.

Another thing to bear in mind is that the defence has to cover all the bases even if they think they have a killer argument in one point. They may believe the time of death is a sure thing, but suppose for some reason, the court fails to understand, and finds against them on that point? It can happen. They'd look awful stupid in that case if they'd put all the eggs in one basket.

I've heard a lot of special pleading trying to stretch the time of Meredith's death well beyond nine o'clock. But the fact remains, it's special pleading. What is the compelling reason why we have to consider wild improbabilities to allow Meredith to have died much later, when the stomach contents and Meredith's known movements all agree that around nine o'clock is the obvious time of death?

I haven't heard anything. We know of no sighting of her alive after that time. There's nothing inside the flat that shows she was alive and doing stuff after that time. There's no hermetically sealed zone that we know a murderer couldn't have penetrated at around that time. Why do we have to consider stomach pathology, or that her friends were wildly mistaken about the time of the meal, or a prolonged torture session, to allow the ToD to be later? We don't, as far as I can see.

Rolfe.

Awesome post.

In addition I've still yet to hear someone elucidate on a theory of the murder where it makes sense that they all did this crime together. It just doesn't make any sense to me. I literally have yet to hear a theory of the crime that's even plausible where they all work together.