Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[js202]

Hi Bruce. What equipment did your wife use to take the picture recently linked to on PMF, of you and Steve Shay in front of Gino's East, that you have oh-so-playfully altered here to include Mr. Squarepants? Was she using auto settings? If not, do you know what f-stop and shutter speed she used? Was it photoshopped or substantially altered in any way before you posted it to Facebook? I see you have made light of the issue here, but I have yet to see any denial from you that this is in fact a photoshopped image.

Why would Bruce Fisher photoshop/falsify an image of himself with Steve Shay? Is Steve Shay, of the profoundly incidental West Seattle Herald, so important that Bruce would somehow greatly benefit from being photographed in his company? If so, what would be the benefit in your mind?

I happen to work in the entertainment business. As a writer and an associate producer, I have several good friends whom most Americans -- and some non-Americans, I suppose -- would consider famous. I have their personal information, and, in some cases personal photos of them, in my iPhone. Given what I do, it is not a particularly big deal. They are people.

Bruce Fisher has spent the last two or three years acquiring a reputation as an important supporter of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. Therefore it is not in the slightest bit unusual that he would meet and interact with individuals who have engaged in similar work, and had a similar impact. Given this, it is not a particularly big deal that he would have had personal interactions with, and even had a picture taken with someone like Steve Shay. I suspect Steve Shay would be among the first to tell you that he is just a person.

I personally do not find Shay's contributions to the Kercher case any more important or legitimate than Bruce Fisher's. In fact I consider Bruce's Injustice in Perugia website more important than the pieces Shay has written. I also find any perceptions excessively hostile to this way of thinking -- especially those requiring conspiracy theories about altering photos -- to be more than a little odd. Persons who would engage in such theorizing would perhaps be well served to take a time out, like a certain Michael/Fulcanelli has been forced to do on several fora. They likely have too much time on their hands, and have become too preoccupied with this case for their own good.

 

[Dougm]

I have always thought that the arguments about the staging of the break in are starting at the wrong place, speculating why someone might have staged a break in, would Amanda have motive to do it, could Rudy have done it, etc.

The reason I don't think there was a staged break in is that the evidence does not support it. The pattern of glass in the room, the dent in the inside shutter, and the position of the rock, all indicate that the rock was thrown from the outside. Massei decided the break in must have been staged because it there was no tool found that someone could have used to open the shutters, and because it seemed unlikely that someone would break in through that window. That is not evidence proving a staged breakin. The "glass on top of the clothes" thing is not proof of anything either, it is not even documented.

The reason I don't think that Rudy staged the break in is that no one staged the break in. I do think it is possible that Rudy broke the window to see if anyone was home, and then Meredith came home and let him in to use the bathroom, but I think that is less likely.

 

[theRealBob]

I still believe that by far the strongest likelihood is that the break-in really happened, and that the person who broke in was Guede. I think he broke in at around 8.40 or so (having earlier cased the cottage, gone away and returned at around 8.30). I think that the evidence on the window, the windowsill and inside Filomena's room actually lends weight to a real break-in: the position and condition of the rock; the marks on the shutter; the glass distribution inside the room*; the large pieces of glass on the sill; the deliberate (and necessary) removal of additional glass in the frame in order for the intruder to reach the latch; the presence of a short black curly hair (which again was seemingly either lost or overlooked by the "crack" forensics team) on the window frame.

I think Guede broke in, entered the cottage, went to get some juice from the fridge, and went to the toilet before starting his search in earnest. I think that Meredith returned home while he was sitting on the toilet. I think that Guede most likely tried to creep out of the house, hoping not to be caught, but was trapped by the locked front door. I think that a confrontation with Meredith ensued, and that the rest of the horrible crime played out from there.

.

I believe that this is what happened.
The fact that he'd feel cornered (by someone who can recognise him) would be a good reason for there being so much unexpected fury in the attack.

 

[Dan O.]

-

Thanks Dan,

here is a link to the photo I might have been thinking of with an arrow pointing to an interesting discoloration:
http://www.injusticeinperugia.com/rh80.jpg

Normally I would try to track down the origin of such a discovery. But for the scuff marks on the wall, the discoloration over the lower window and the apparent abrasion mark on a rock under the planter along with a discoloration on the outside edge of the porch under the planter closest to the wall, I don't have to hunt down the origin as I discovered them myself.

These marks are what prompted my theory that Rudy had traversed the wall from the outside edge of the porch and therefore hadn't climbed the window grate and hadn't set foot on the ground below. Subsequently, I completed my measurement calculations that show the window is only 1.1 meters from the edge of the porch so the traverse would be quite feasible.

 

[Kestrel]

I have always thought that the arguments about the staging of the break in are starting at the wrong place, speculating why someone might have staged a break in, would Amanda have motive to do it, could Rudy have done it, etc.

It's long been clear that the Perugia investigators started with the conclusion and worked backwards to determine what happened.

The chief investigator used his special talent for detecting guilt and decided that Amanda was guilty. Raffaele was guilty because he was always with Amanda. The burglary must have been staged because a real burglary didn't make sense if Amanda was guilty. Since AK and RS are guilty, they must have turned off their phones to hide their movements. There is evidence in the room that does not match either suspect, therefore a third conspirator is needed. There is no evidence that AK or RS were in the murder room, they must have cleaned it all up.

It's a lot like extrapolating the entire universe from a piece of fairy cake.

 

[lane99]

I still have a bad feeling the court may convict them again. Where is all of the confidence in Hellman coming from?

It just seems like a bad nightmare that will never end.

Well, the anonymous poster named "Fuji" stated a couple pages back that she was sure the convictions would be upheld. So that should be your first clue that they won't be.

Secondly, the only important evidence against them (as feeble as it was to begin with) has now evaporated. You can rest assured that they are both going to be acquitted.

For the result to be anything other than that, the court would not only have to be corrupt, it would also have to not care that that corruption was plain and clear for all to see. And I don't like the odds of that happening.

The "neverending nightmare" will be over any day now.

 

[Dougm]

Well, the anonymous poster named "Fuji" stated a couple pages back that she was sure the convictions would be upheld. So that should be your first clue that they won't be.

Secondly, the only important evidence against them (as feeble as it was to begin with) has now evaporated. You can rest assured that they are both going to be acquitted.

For the result to be anything other than that, the court would not only have to be corrupt, it would also have to not care that that corruption was plain and clear for all to see. And I don't like the odds of that happening.

The "neverending nightmare" will be over any day now.

I have to think that the big difference this time vs. the first trial (where the evidence was just as scant), is that the public opinion and media coverage has changed, if not totally, at least some. The expectation of many is now is somewhere between definite acquittal, to possible acquittal. It the court this time convicts them again, there are bound to be many more people questioning it than the first time. I don't think the court can get away with another decision using the "they must have done this" logic not supported by evidence like the last time. It would make Italy look like a laughingstock. This time, if they are going to convict Amanda and Raffaele, they need real rationale, and real evidence, because more people are paying attention.

 

[Poppy1016]

I still don't understand the delay until the 23rd. After all they just took summer break.

 

[charlatan]

I still don't understand the delay until the 23rd. After all they just took summer break.

My understanding is that Hellmann was willing to jump right into closing arguments but neither the prosecution nor the defense was ready.

 

[Onofarar]

Libel is tough to prove. Harder when the alleged libel is against a public person.

From Wiki: There are several ways a person must go about proving that libel has taken place. For example, in the United States, the person first must prove that the statement was false. Second, that person must prove that the statement caused harm. And, third, they must prove that the statement was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement. These steps are for an ordinary citizen. In the case of a celebrity or public official trying to prove libel, they must prove the first three steps, and must (in the United States) prove the statement was made with the intent to do harm, or with reckless disregard for the truth. Usually specifically referred to as "proving malice".

AS LJ has pointed out the UK has much stricter libel laws and is the preferred venue for those parties litagating a libel case and seeking damages for said libel. I think AK and her family have some real possibilities to pursue post-acquittal provided they bring their libel case in a UK court.

 

[Draca]

And a good one. I think that your new analysis is likely what happened, except that I am not sure about whether Rudy left Filomena's door open, or not. I think that, given the evidence, the most likely scenario is that Rudy broke in via the window, then went to the kitchen, had his drink, went to the can, and was surprised and trapped when Meredith came home. The question is, did she either notice him in the bathroom (he could have left the door open, thinking he was alone, and it was right near the front door), or see the broken glass, or simply not see him at first, and he came out and attacked her later? To me, the scenario you detail above is very plausible, because it also potentially explains the whole killing. It also explains why he did not flush, because either had to get up quickly, or, if she did not see the broken glass, may have tried to sneak out quietly.

Much as I think that Rudy was a slimeball that killed a young woman, the idea that he came there with the idea of raping and killing her and leaving her in a messy pool of blood has never made sense to me. Neither does the "he had a date with Meredith" scenario. So it logically follows that something went wrong. It also doesn't totally make sense to me that, as some have claimed, that Guede broke in and then waited for Meredith to come home so he could attack her. I think it is much more likely that he broke in, thinking he would hang out there, find some stuff to steal, and enjoy the feeling of being in the flat of these pretty girls, maybe even look through some of their "private" stuff for a thrill. Then, while he was on the can, Meredith came home. The part that I can't quite decide is, does it make more sense that she discovered either Guede or the window broken immediately, or did she go to her room, then come back and find him trying to leave? Or, did he see her, get excited at the prospect that she was there, and go to her room and try to force her to have sex with him? My current thought is that the "she discovered him" scenario is more likely. If she came home and did not see him or the window right away, it seems likely he would have tried to sneak out.

She went to her room first. The book she borrowed was on her bed. The tote bag she used that night was most likely hung on the back of the desk chair; it was found on the floor in that area.

I've long thought, as others have, that Rudy Guede heard MK arrive home while on the toilet. He didn't flush in order to not be heard and tried to sneak out of the door, only to find it locked from the inside. Meredith heard him try to leave the cottage and came out of her room. Something happened to make Rudy chase her back into her room where the attack began in the left hand corner of the room by the bed and bedside table.

Another idea is that MK went to her room first and then came back to the Kitchen/Laundry area and surprised him. He then chased her to her room.

 

[Dougm]

She went to her room first. The book she borrowed was on her bed. The tote bag she used that night was most likely hung on the back of the desk chair; it was found on the floor in that area.

I've long thought, as others have, that Rudy Guede heard MK arrive home while on the toilet. He didn't flush in order to not be heard and tried to sneak out of the door, only to find it locked from the inside. Meredith heard him try to leave the cottage and came out of her room. Something happened to make Rudy chase her back into her room where the attack began in the left hand corner of the room by the bed and bedside table.

Another idea is that MK went to her room first and then came back to the Kitchen/Laundry area and surprised him. He then chased her to her room.

I can't keep but thinking that her scream is a key element. She either screamed when she saw him, or screamed when he attacked her, or both. Given that Rudy could not possibly have wanted to end up with a murdered girl with his prints in her blood, I suspect that she screamed, and in trying to subdue her and to silence that scream, he killed her.

 

[Draca]

No I don't agree. There would be so many people that knew her that Rudy wouldn't worry about it.

Personally I think Rudy threw the rock and Meredith came home while he was waiting to see if anybody would notice.

I do not see that as a possibility. If Rudy Guede jumped MK at the doorway he would not have bothered to take the book she borrowed out of her tote bag and place it on her bed.

 

[Draca]

I can't keep but thinking that her scream is a key element. She either screamed when she saw him, or screamed when he attacked her, or both. Given that Rudy could not possibly have wanted to end up with a murdered girl with his prints in her blood, I suspect that she screamed, and in trying to subdue her and to silence that scream, he killed her.

I agree. Rudy Guede said she screamed about 9:20 p.m. That would have MK screaming 10-15 minutes after arriving home. Rudy Guede may have stayed on the toilet for a time listening for the best time to try and leave.

 

[Dougm]

I agree. Rudy Guede said she screamed about 9:20 p.m. That would have MK screaming 10-15 minutes after arriving home. Rudy Guede may have stayed on the toilet for a time listening for the best time to try and leave.

I keep looking for the explanation that best fits the evidence. That seems to be the best one: Rudy breaks in, he has a drink, goes to the can, Meredith comes home, he panics, tries to sneak out, gets caught, and all hell breaks loose.

 

[charlatan]

I've long thought, as others have, that Rudy Guede heard MK arrive home while on the toilet. He didn't flush in order to not be heard and tried to sneak out of the door, only to find it locked from the inside. Meredith heard him try to leave the cottage and came out of her room. Something happened to make Rudy chase her back into her room where the attack began in the left hand corner of the room by the bed and bedside table.

To borrow Massei's language, it is possible, indeed probable that Rudy had a reason to leave the toilet unflushed. Therefore either his 'date' story is true and he rushed out of the bathroom upon hearing Meredith scream, or he was in the bathroom when Meredith returned home and avoided flushing the toilet so as not to alert her to his presence. I'm inclined toward the latter scenario. None of the pro-guilt stories I've seen adequately explains the unflushed toilet.

 

[RWVBWL]

Blocked their path...

I keep looking for the explanation that best fits the evidence. That seems to be the best one: Rudy breaks in, he has a drink, goes to the can, Meredith comes home, he panics, tries to sneak out, gets caught, and all hell breaks loose.

Hi DougM,
I was reading elsewhere yesterday and came across this:

"Judge Paolo Micheli admitted several new pieces of evidence, including the testimony of a young Somali man who used to play basketball with Guede on a court near the rented house that Miss Kercher shared with Knox."

and this:

"In the document, Abukar Mohamed Barrow, known as “Momi”, accused Guede of drinking too much, taking drugs and trying to steal the handbags of young women during nights out on the town.

“Rudy was often drunk. I know he took cocaine. Often he was off his head with the drugs that he was taking. And when he was like that he would be a nuisance to girls, he’d block their path and try to hassle them. When we were in crowded places he stole their bags,” Barrow testified, according to excerpts of his evidence printed in the Italian press."

(Hilte by RW)


Link here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...er-trial-Rudy-Guede-was-violent-to-women.html

Guede liked the cocaine high, liked getting drunk, was a nuisance to girls and blocked their path and hassled them?

Hmmm...
RW

 

[Dougm]

Hi DougM,
I was reading elsewhere yesterday and came across this:



and this:

(Hilte by RW)


Link here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...er-trial-Rudy-Guede-was-violent-to-women.html

Guede liked the cocaine high, liked getting drunk, was a nuisance to girls and blocked their path and hassled them?

Hmmm...
RW

What is your thought, RW? That Guede came out of the bathroom and decided to "hassle" Meredith?

Could be, but I think it is more likely he tried to hassle her when out at pubs and/or the halloween party he says he was at, and she did not go for it. I think she was out of his league, which could have been part of what triggered his rage.

 

[AmyStrange]

I can't keep but thinking that her scream is a key element. She either screamed when she saw him, or screamed when he attacked her, or both. Given that Rudy could not possibly have wanted to end up with a murdered girl with his prints in her blood, I suspect that she screamed, and in trying to subdue her and to silence that scream, he killed her.

-

That makes sense Doug,

alternatively, I think (theoretically of course) that he grabbed her as she was coming out of her room while taking off her coat and her hands were still tangled up in the coat (sweatshirt?) sleeves behind her back (her coat was originally found with the sleeves inside out) which possibly explains the marks on her wrist and arms that the prosecution used as proof that someone held her as she was killed.

That's when she noticed him and screamed. He grabbed her coat and twisted it so she couldn't get her hands out while at the same time held his knife to her throat and told her to be quiet and/ or asked her if she had any money (or where her keys were) and as she struggled; they fell to the floor and Meredith hit her head (which might explain the bruises to her face which were also used as evidence that more than one person attacked her) with Rudy ending up on top of her, and during this struggle his knife slowly cut her back and forth, and she began bleeding badly.

He didn't originally plan to kill her, but there was so much blood, he thought there was only one thing to do and that was to finish the job, and so he turned her over and drove the knife into her throat or maybe she fell on his knife wrong when they both fell to the floor during the struggle.

That's when he decided to rape her and put towels over her wounds at first so he wouldn't get sprayed as she desperately struggled to clear her lungs of blood. But then finally used the duvet so he wouldn't have to look at her or see her looking at him while silently pleading with him to help her...

But this is just my opinion.

The problem that nags me about any scenario where Rudy kills Meredith intentionally is his criminal history. Other then when he threatened someone with a knife after being discovered in the middle of a break-in, does he have any history at all of physical or violent behavior or battery of any kind?

I don't know why, but it does not make any sense (to me anyway) for Rudy to out right just kill Meredith. Why kill her? Because she could finger him as someone who broke into her home, but then why try to rape her. was he such an ignorant idiot that he didn't know that DNA would corner him eventually anyway. He seemed street smart enough to at least know that it eventually could.

His activities after he left her are very suspect and does help to paint him as having sociopathic tendencies, but so does Amanda's behavior (and spooky eyes when viewed at the right angle or in the right lighting) help paint her in the same way, until you see her behavior in context and as a whole. Maybe we need to know more about Rudy's behavior in context or maybe he really did just flip out and kill her in an emotional state, but why no previous history of that?

I don't know any of the answers to that, but what I do know is that there is way more physical evidence that Rudy killed her than there is that Amanda or Raffaele had anything to do with it.

Plus why is Amanda's behavior proof she is guilty of murder, but Rudy's behavior is not proof that he killed her all alone by himself? No matter which scenario you ultimately believe (the date, appointment, or being caught in the middle of a break-in); the bottom line is that he left her to die.

HE FREAKIN' LEFT HER TO DIE!!!

Dave

 

[JREF2010]

Well, the anonymous poster named "Fuji" stated a couple pages back that she was sure the convictions would be upheld. So that should be your first clue that they won't be.

Secondly, the only important evidence against them (as feeble as it was to begin with) has now evaporated. You can rest assured that they are both going to be acquitted.

For the result to be anything other than that, the court would not only have to be corrupt, it would also have to not care that that corruption was plain and clear for all to see. And I don't like the odds of that happening.

The "neverending nightmare" will be over any day now.

And even Doug Preston and Dempsey stated a reduction is very possible, and full release at the SC level at Rome. However this was said before Hellman and Zanetti came into Perugia and allowed the DNA experts report which might have expedited the "outsider" reviewing the case.