Continuation Part 4: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Bill Williams]

I recently addressed that on pmf. That sir, is impossible. It was a 10lb rock the distance is too far - the shutters were closed. He'd have had to have climbed up opened the shutters which were in fact found the next morning to be ajar - they couldn't be pinned back. Clamber down again - up the banking across and to the parapet. Shotputting that 10lb rock with amazing accuracy through the window - then he clambered down the banking and up the wall (again without leaving any traces at all or disturbing the rusty nail jutting out) and through the window, without damaging himself, disturbing the glass fragments which were actually found in a line on the ledge where they had in fact fallen against the CLOSED shutter when the rock was cast by the obliterated Sollecito from the inside.

Everyone who suspects that Tronic is on to something, should do what I did. Show a friend in the investigations business "Kermits" powerpoint from TJMK website about the breakin. I'm not this moment addressing this reply to Tronic, because Tronic has made up his mind. Good for him. My guy took a look at the Powerpoint prepared by Kermit (Kermit intended the powerpoint to convince readers of Tranic's view), and said, "This is overthinking this. That's not what burglars do. They don't think, they 'do'." He said that by the time you'd take in loading the powerpoint, someone like Guede - prior history is the key here - would be in and out of Filomena's window.

So my challenge to all who think Tronic may just have busted this case, is to have a similar conversation with someone in your area, someone who knows what they are talking about. Maybe just the police station. Warning though: my friend now thinks I am the nutter for even engaging the likes of Tronic in conversation about this!

Tronic and Kermit are simply asserting things, against the experience of everyone who deals regularly with break and enters. Talk with your local insurance adjuster. Then again, if you are committed to Knox's guilt regardless, do not talk to them. It will ruin your day.

There were no traces of Guede within the room. It was November. There were no organic traces on the ledge. That crime scene staging is the weakest part of the new "Hellman" report.

No glass was found on the ground outside. Large pieces of glass blocking access were still in the window frame.

Mostly the photos do not support this. There is a shard of glass from Filomena's window in Mez's room. The circumstantial evidence surrounding the break-in is clear, even if the minutiae that Tronic brings up is not 100% Again, this is covered ad nauseum elsewhere. Don't believe me, don't believe Tronic - do your own search on this. You will not be disappointed.

All that is apart from the obvious difficulty of getting up over the ledge and through the window. All that again without Meredith Kercher hearing and fleeing. Without Guede beeing seen or heard from the road or the residences above - sound travels in cold air.

Again, the access through F.R.'s window was a cinch to someone like Guede who had a prior history; the motive means and opportunity, and the skill and background. The true wonder in this case is that once the police replaced Lumumba with Guede, there was no need to keep Knox and Sollecito. Please remember, the "faked break-in" was hatched by police when Lumumba was on the scene, and none of the three originals could have done what Guede does for a living!

I really believe many people heard the later scream Meredith Kercher issued as Amanda Knox finished her off with Sollecitos 32cm kitchen knife she carried to the apartment but they didn't want to get involved.

You are welcome to believe that. Who can argue with "belief"? The reason why I don't believe what you just typed is that the knife in question (presented at trial) not only matches nothing at the crime scene (wounds or imprints on sheets), it isn't even forensically linked to the crime. The organic matter on the blade is starch. Also, Knox's Nov 1st clothes were laying on her own bed for 46 days right where she said she put them after her Nov 2 morning ing shower. The reason why the police did not pay any attention to them, is that they had no forensically interesting value - no blood, no nothing on them. Are you really saying that someone could "finish off" someone else with a "32cm blade", leaving the scene that was in Mez's room, WITHOUT getting a single spec of anything on their clothes?

I hope Tronic posts again here. Whoever Tronic is, is entitled to his/her beliefs. But they are not entitled to facts, esp. if facts are obvious.

 

[LondonJohn]

I recently addressed that on pmf. That sir, is impossible.

You may need to revise your definition of "impossible". Yours is incorrect.

It was a 10lb rock the distance is too far

You're aware that the parapet (i.e. the edge of the car parking area at the end of the driveway) was level in height with Filomena's window, and only around 1.5m away horizontally? Too far?

the shutters were closed.

Why couldn't he have opened them first?

He'd have had to have climbed up opened the shutters

Yep. Not difficult or even very time-consuming. Bear in mind that Guede wouldn't have had to make a full ascent in order to open the exterior shutters. He would merely have had to climb high enough to be able to reach up and open the shutters. He could almost certainly have achieved this without his feet having to leave the grate on the lower window.

which were in fact found the next morning to be ajar - they couldn't be pinned back.

You're wrong about this. The exterior shutters could be pinned back without difficulty - the problem with them is that they couldn't be pulled tightly shut. You're correct that they were found slightly ajar the next morning (but not, incidentally, as open as shown in the crime scene photos - the shutters were opened further by the postal police before the photos were taken). But in fact this is totally consistent with Guede pulling the exterior shutters closed behind him once he was inside the room, then the shutters working themselves open at some point in the night. And of course closing the exterior shutters would be an entirely logical thing for Guede to have done: doing so would have prevented anyone outside the cottage from seeing the broken window, and it would also afford Guede extra privacy while inside the cottage.

Clamber down again - up the banking across and to the parapet.

Yup. Easy. And bear in mind that Guede would likely have retreated to the shadowy undergrowth in between each stage of this process, in order to check that he hadn't been seen.

Shotputting that 10lb rock with amazing accuracy through the window -

See the earlier reply related to the actual topography of the ground around the side of the cottage. "Amazing accuracy" not required from a horizontal throw of 1.5m.

then he clambered down the banking and up the wall (again without leaving any traces at all or disturbing the rusty nail jutting out)

Why have you convinced yourself that Guede would have had to leave traces of himself on the ground, the wall or the nail? Bear in mind that the ground below Filomena's window was helpfully destroyed in evidential terms by the "crack" police using that area to make phone calls and smoke cigarettes. And perhaps you're not aware that a lithe, fit man of Guede's build could easily ascend from the grate of the lower window to the sill of Filomena's window without even touching the wall in-between or the nail.

and through the window, without damaging himself

Why would Guede have damaged himself if he were wearing a heavy coat, jeans and gloves?

disturbing the glass fragments which were actually found in a line on the ledge where they had in fact fallen against the CLOSED shutter when the rock was cast by the obliterated Sollecito from the inside.

Now I'm afraid your argument is delving into areas of fantasy and confirmation bias. Unfortunately you seem to be unaware of the behaviour of glass panes when hit by slow-velocity blunt objects. And your rant at Sollecito was a bit of a give-away to your inherent bias.

There were no traces of Guede within the room.

Why should there have been? Was there any physical confrontation within that room? Was any of Guede's flesh or blood exposed, or was it necessary for him to have touched any smooth surfaces with his ungloved fingers?

It was November.

This is relevant how exactly.......?

There were no organic traces on the ledge.

Why should there have been? And besides, there was a mysterious hair that appears to have "gone missing".

That crime scene staging is the weakest part of the new "Hellman" report.

You're entitled to your opinion. I disagree with it.

No glass was found on the ground outside. Large pieces of glass blocking access were still in the window frame.

The police never conducted a proper search for the type of glass they should have been looking for on the ground below the window: very small (sub-mm) glass fragments that are the only backward-travelling product of thin glass panes that have been smashed by a slow-moving blunt object. The police ignorantly assumed that they should have found large chunks of glass on the ground, and then erroneously concluded that since no such pieces were found, there was no glass at all on the ground. And then they continued on to obliterate the ground by trampling all over it during their cigarette and phone breaks.

All that is apart from the obvious difficulty of getting up over the ledge and through the window.

Not difficult at all.

All that again without Meredith Kercher hearing and fleeing.

Why are you assuming that Meredith was inside the cottage when all this occurred? The evidence suggests that Guede broke in before Meredith arrived home, and that he was therefore already inside the cottage when she entered through the front door (Guede's closure of Filomena's exterior shutters behind him would have obscured the broken window totally from Meredith as she approached the cottage).

Without Guede beeing seen or heard from the road or the residences above - sound travels in cold air.

Not hard to believe. After all, how many people look out of their windows at night. Provided there wasn't anyone actually walking or driving past, I'd say it would have been pretty easy for Guede to do all this unnoticed. And of course, you're conveniently forgetting that if Knox/Sollecito had staged the break-in (which they didn't, but which you erroneously claim), why didn't anyone see or hear this happening? Catch 22.

I really believe many people heard the later scream Meredith Kercher issued

Ah, well it's instructive to know what you "really believe". Unfortunately, there's a Catch-22 here as well. If there really was what Capezzali called a loud and harrowing "scream of death", which she apparently could hear from behind double glazing in her apartment some 50m away from the cottage (and on the wrong side of the cottage), then how come virtually nobody else in those dozens and dozens of apartments overlooking the cottage heard it? How come Curatolo never heard it, despite being only around 100m from Meredth's window and sitting outside? The almost certain truth is that there never was a "later" scream. There may have been an earlier scream when Meredith was actually attacked - at around 9.15-9.30pm - but one that was not loud enough to be heard by anyone in the apartments opposite or in Piazza Grimana.

as Amanda Knox finished her off with Sollecitos 32cm kitchen knife she carried to the apartment but they didn't want to get involved.

Oh dear.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I recently addressed that on pmf. That sir, is impossible. It was a 10lb rock the distance is too far - the shutters were closed.

3m throw, when the parapet is level with the window? It's not too far for a grandpa, certainly not for a basketball player. In 2007 Filomena testified the shutters were not closed, because of the swelling of the wood.

I personally think Filomena lied both about pulling the shutters in and later in 2009 about closing them. She was in a hurry, late for a party, left a mess in her room and neglected to secure her window properly.

 

[curi0us]

I recently addressed that on pmf. That sir, is impossible. It was a 10lb rock the distance is too far - the shutters were closed.

I just went outside and found a rock that looked bigger then the one in the crime scene photos and threw it roughly ten meters. My rock was an irregular 22cm by 14cm. Did anyone at PMF think to test this out with a reasonably athletic male and some similar sized rocks before deciding it was impossible?

For the shutters, how do you know they were closed? Filomena wasn't sure of that herself and who else could know but her?

 

[Kaosium]

Strangely, the Massei court was even more lenient that the Hellmann court - since the range for calunnia when paired with the 25 years sentence, should have been between four to twelve years additional.

Where did you read this? Does that suggest that with the larger (murder) sentence the calunnia sentence should increase? I thought I read the opposite at Frank Sfarzo's and in Broken_English's posts at IIP? The standard sentence for calunnia is ~28 mos. Amanda had some aggravation to bring it up to 3 yrs. Because she no longer had the sentence for the murder conviction or the others ones, it wasn't mitigated down like it was in the Massei Court.

Note there might be some byzantine p) nonsense about sentences running concurrently or somesuch, so with a longer murder charge the calunnia sentence might be 'longer' but run concurrently with the murder charge except for a year of it or something. I'm just talking about how much it adds to the total sentence, or as a stand-alone one.

Massei's court imposed a one-year sentence for it.

Right, my understanding was that's because of the 25 year sentence for the murder charge, in order not to reach excessive penalties they mitigate down the sentences for the lesser charges.

 

[Bill Williams]

Folks - Tronic should be, yes should be listened to in his recounting of the impossibility of Guede entering the second storey window.

He's succeeding in one thing, I have re-read Massei on the issue of the break-in. Tronic is now arguing something beyond what both Massei concluded and the prosecution argued. So where Tronic and I agree, then, is that both the prosecution and the 1st instance judges incompetantly analysed the nature of the break-in.

Re-reading Massei - the issue is NOT the difficulty of the climb, nor the plausibility of the rock being heaved from the outside... what is definitive for Massei is the fuzzy recollection of Filomena herself as to the position of the outer shutters. Even if closed, Massei concedes, that would only have necessitated multiple climbs by Guede.

This scenario appears totally unlikely, given the effort involved (going twice underneath the window, going up to throw the stone, scaling the wall twice) and taking into account the uncertainty of success (having to count on the two favourable circumstances indicated above), with a repetition of movements and behaviours, all of which could easily be seen by anyone who happened to be passing by on the street or actually coming into the house.

The issues for Massei are the effort expended, even if a worse-case-blind scenerio. But give Tronic his due, Massei offers something repeated by Tronic about the so called necessity of leaving traces on the wall or inside the room.

The double climb necessary to attain the height of three and a half metres would have left some kind of trace or imprint on the wall, especially on the points on the wall that the "climber" would have used to support his feet, all the more as both the witnesses Romanelli and Marco Zaroli gave statements indicating that the earth, on that early November evening, must have been very wet.

Once again, please note that Massei is conceding that the climb is doable. As per the issue of "points on the wall that the climber would have used to support his feet", I can only offer the last time I say an athletic, 20-something scale a wall of 3 and one half meters, the top of which was accessible to shoulder height because of the grating below (which both Massei and Trin conveniently forget), is that putting one's feet on the wall are not necessary at all. Not from what I saw. While inside, Guebe could have done what he always did - removed his shoes (bare footprint on the bathmat anyone?) or walked tippy toes precisely so as not to leave traces of the outside.

But note how both Massei have to massage the three and one half meters height! Look at the pictures, people! You can climb the grate on the lower window? I can understand how some schmuck on an Internet forum would conveniently neglect to let you know about that - but a judge!

The compelling issue is that there is no sign of anyone else other than Mez and Guede in the house that night. No interesting forensic presence of anyone else.

Place this against Guede's obvious abilities, and at the very least the plausibility that it happened as it looked. Which is more likely? I go with tiptoes over missing forensics. But that's just me.

Secondly, Massei discusses the possibility that Guede himself faked the burglary. The trouble is, reading Masseei on that, and why it is unlikely that someone who'd just killed someone else would do that - all those reasons apply to Sollecito and Knox, too. Amazingly, Massei doubts that Guede would fake something in a manner in which he has an ability to do and a background for doing! - who's side is Massei on?

Lastly, if it is actually impossible for the break-in to have happened, then why did the prosecution HAVE TO suggest that no burglar breaks into the home of someone they know? Wasn't the impossibility or the shutters the compelling issue? Apparently not - the prosecutors needed more to bolster what even they concede is weak.

And please remember, Knox was supposed to have fingered Lumumba, and has (to my memory) never once herself suggested Guede did the deed. Why would she finger someone who patently could not have broken in, has no ability so to do, and no background?

Think about it. Stopping to actually DO a faked break-in on top of a world-class clean risks ALL the things Massei says Guede himself says Guede would have been risking for stopping and doing.

They risked it and acc. to guilters got away with it.

So wasting all that effort, not to mention the unimagined good luck, by turning and fingering Lumumba makes the least sense of all!?!? Shouldn't Knox have said, "Don't waste your time with my boss, it was Guede."????

How convoluted does this have to get before you just concede - "Ok, Guede broke it in as advertised?"

Good theories converge on the evidence, people. Bad theories diverge from the evidence, so much so that one has to engage in speculative possibilities... Massei had 39 of them and this is one.

Let's agree to put this one to rest. Tronic should be thanked, though, I had not reviewed Massei's report on this in a while. It was tripe back then, and it is tripe now. And to prove Massei was correct, Tronic actually has to argue things Massei himself didn't even entertain as possibilities!

Read it for yourself!

 

[Grinder]

If the room next door to Meredith's had been Filomena's and her lamp was one used, would the PGP think she was involved in the murder? Of course not, but the total lack of rational thought does not bother the PGP. Everything is based on the concept of guilt being a certainty.

If a shotputter can put the 16 lb ball 75 ft., it is easy to see that Rudy could throw a 10 lbs. rock 15 ft. It also seems a very odd size of rock for Raffaele to choose for staging, not to mention that just leaving the balcony doors unlocked or the front door open would have been good enough.

Filomena was rushed when she was leaving on the 1st and may well have not closed the outside shutters no matter what she said to the police. It is interesting that she would bother to close the outside shutters during mild weather when everybody knows that the window was too high for a break-in.

Question: I've been reading elsewhere that the driver of the old dark colored car in the driveway is a Carmela Occhipinti. I had never seen that car's owner identified and have seen it debated on every forum. Is it in fact the case that the owner has been known the whole time?

 

[anglolawyer]

Well, we all know this but no one mentions it, so I will - there is a distinct impact mark on the outer face of the inner white shutter in Filomena's room with glass fragments embedded in it. How did the stagers manage that if they were breaking the window from the inside? In my opinion, that mark is in just the place you would want it to be to deflect the incoming rock at the angle required to have it end up off to the right (viewing outwards).

 

[katy_did]

Tronic,

Good to see you here again. I don't think Guede had to carry that weight; I think he threw the rock from the parapet. I don't think anyone here is motivated by xenophobia: I don't think that the conspiracy alleged between Guede, Sollecito, and Knox makes any more or any less sense that the conspiracy alleged in South Carolina (in the United States) between Billy Wayne Cope and the actual murdere/rapist. I think that the mark on Knox's neck looks like a hickey, not a scratch.

I read about the Billy Wayne Cope case some time ago, Chris, and it's always struck me as such a similar case to this one in many respects. From memory, police were originally suspicious of him because of his 'cold' behaviour after his daughter was found raped and strangled in her bed, and eventually they got him to confess to killing her. Then several months later another man's DNA was found on the girl's clothing; it turned out this man had been linked with other break-ins and sexual assaults in the area. Yet rather than conclude Cope was innocent, they simply charged him with conspiracy to commit the crime with the other man, despite there being no evidence they'd even met.

It only goes to show that this kind of miscarriage of justice can happen anywhere.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Three months after he was cleared of murder charges, Raffaele Sollecito is planning to marry an Italian volleyball player, Annie Achille, according to the ANSA News Agency.
. . .
Meanwhile, Italian police and prosecutors have already announced they will appeal the case for a third time.

http://mynorthwest.com/11/607050/Amanda-Knoxs-former-Italian-boyfriend-engaged

I wonder if this is a recent announcement by the prosecution, or if it goes back to October?

 

[Rolfe]

^A quick summary is that Sollecito owned one military replica combat knife that was mounted on his bedroom wall and two ~3 inch blade folding knives. One of the folding knives he usually carried and had on him when the police arrested him. As your questions suggest Sollecito owning a few knives that would have made very appropriate self-defense or murder weapons just made Massei's kitchen knife in the handbag for protection rationalization even more preposterous.

Is that all? So much for "knife boy"!

Rolfe.

 

[Bill Williams]

Where did you read this? Does that suggest that with the larger (murder) sentence the calunnia sentence should increase? I thought I read the opposite at Frank Sfarzo's and in Broken_English's posts at IIP? The standard sentence for calunnia is ~28 mos. Amanda had some aggravation to bring it up to 3 yrs. Because she no longer had the sentence for the murder conviction or the others ones, it wasn't mitigated down like it was in the Massei Court.

See Wikipedia.... I am assuming that Wikipedia has it correct. I cannot read Italian....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calunnia

 

[Paninaro]

If the room next door to Meredith's had been Filomena's and her lamp was one used, would the PGP think she was involved in the murder? Of course not, but the total lack of rational thought does not bother the PGP. Everything is based on the concept of guilt being a certainty.

If a shotputter can put the 16 lb ball 75 ft., it is easy to see that Rudy could throw a 10 lbs. rock 15 ft. It also seems a very odd size of rock for Raffaele to choose for staging, not to mention that just leaving the balcony doors unlocked or the front door open would have been good enough.

Filomena was rushed when she was leaving on the 1st and may well have not closed the outside shutters no matter what she said to the police. It is interesting that she would bother to close the outside shutters during mild weather when everybody knows that the window was too high for a break-in.

Question: I've been reading elsewhere that the driver of the old dark colored car in the driveway is a Carmela Occhipinti. I had never seen that car's owner identified and have seen it debated on every forum. Is it in fact the case that the owner has been known the whole time?

As Hellmann makes clear, Filomena Romanelli in her statement 12-3-2007 remembers that she pulled the shutters, but didn't close them. So this was probably the case and Rudy Guede found them half-open when he arrived at the cottage. Either they were open enough already to throw the rock from the terrace through the window or Rudy Guede climbed up/reached them from the side and opened them wider before throwing the rock.

Hellmann very logically shows there is absolutely no mystery here and I'm surprised that anyone ever thought there was.

 

[Grinder]

As Hellmann makes clear, Filomena Romanelli in her statement 12-3-2007 remembers that she pulled the shutters, but didn't close them. So this was probably the case and Rudy Guede found them half-open when he arrived at the cottage. Either they were open enough already to throw the rock from the terrace through the window or Rudy Guede climbed up/reached them from the side and opened them wider before throwing the rock.

Hellmann very logically shows there is absolutely no mystery here and I'm surprised that anyone ever thought there was.

And I would even question whether she took the time to pull them together. She has Raffaele wrap the birthday gift while she got herself ready to leave because she was late. It is also possible that she left her room in more disarray than she admitted.

 

[LondonJohn]

Well, we all know this but no one mentions it, so I will - there is a distinct impact mark on the outer face of the inner white shutter in Filomena's room with glass fragments embedded in it. How did the stagers manage that if they were breaking the window from the inside? In my opinion, that mark is in just the place you would want it to be to deflect the incoming rock at the angle required to have it end up off to the right (viewing outwards).

I agree that the indentation and embedded glass is entirely consistent with a) the windows being closed with the interior shutters loosely pulled closed (i.e. not latched shut), b) a rock being thrown from outside, c) that rock passing through the window pane and striking the exterior-facing side of the interior shutter (denting the shutter and pushing it open in the process).

However, to be fair it's possibly also consistent with the convoluted theory dreamed up by prosecutors (and seemingly accepted by Massei's court), whereby the "stager" held the left hand pane open inward at - say - right angles to the wall, with the left-hand interior shutter held against the open pane. The rock was then propelled against the outer face of the opened window pane (which would now be facing perpendicular to the wall, facing one of the side walls of the room). The rock would then pass through the pane and strike the exterior face of the interior shutter.

Of course, not only is the above theory incredibly convoluted (and thus goes against the principle of Occam's razor), the fact remains that all the available evidence is strongly consistent with a real break-in. Therefore, there's no reason whatsoever for a court to conclude that the break-in was staged, and that consequently this is part of the evidence of guilt of Knox/Sollecito. In jurisprudence terms, this is totally putting the cart before the horse: if a) Knox/Sollecito are guilty, then b) break-in would have to have been staged, therefore c) if we can find a theory that is consistent with a staged break-in (however convoluted), than d) we can conclude that it's at least possible that the break-in was staged, therefore e) we can use this to add to the canon of incriminating evidence against Knox and Sollecito.

It's extraordinary to think that Massei allowed his court to think in such a ludicrously incorrect and improper way. But he did. Thankfully, Hellmann called him out good and proper.

 

[LondonJohn]

http://mynorthwest.com/11/607050/Amanda-Knoxs-former-Italian-boyfriend-engaged

I wonder if this is a recent announcement by the prosecution, or if it goes back to October?

I would be almost completely certain that this harks back to the immediate aftermath of the Hellmann verdict in October, and the declarative statements from Mignini and Comodi (which they had neither the authority nor the responsibility to make).

 

[LondonJohn]

And I would even question whether she took the time to pull them together. She has Raffaele wrap the birthday gift while she got herself ready to leave because she was late. It is also possible that she left her room in more disarray than she admitted.

Yes, I (and others) have suggested many times previously that it's highly possible that Filomena left her room in more of a dishevelled state that she subsequently testified to, and that she very possibly barely pulled the exterior shutters closed at all. I think this may be the case partly because Filomena may have been embarrassed about the state of her room (but this is probably of minor significance). The more significant potential factor at play here is whether Filomena was consciously or subconsciously led towards a bias against Knox. This is a fairly well-known (and demonstrable) phenomenon, whereby people "re-remember" factual evidence when a) they become convinced of the guilt (or innocence) of an individual, and where an altered version of events corresponds more closely with this belief.

In this case, I think it's highly possible that Filomena - who seemingly (let's not forget) was not suspicious of Knox at all in the direct aftermath of the murder - came to believe strongly that Knox was indeed directly involved in the murder. This belief most likely came about through a combination of police interviews, slanted media reports, and the very fact that Knox/Sollecito were arrested and subsequently charged.

I think that Filomena's belief in Knox's (and Sollecito's) guilt may have subconsciously induced her to alter reality in relation to the evidence in her room. I think she may have convinced herself that her room was tidy when she left it on the day of the murder, and also that she pulled the exterior shutters in tight before leaving. By doing so, this gave the observed post-murder evidence in her room a far stronger tie to Knox's guilt - a position which Filomena would have been consciously and unconsciously willing to support by early 2008 onwards.

Note, however, that I am in no way accusing Filomena of actively distorting her testimony or actively lying in order to "frame" Knox. What I'm suggesting is far more subtle and pernicious, and is very often something the subject him/herself isn't even aware is happening. It's a form of confirmation bias, manifesting itself in a "re-remembering" of events or other facts to fit with a prior belief.

 

[Bill Williams]

Secondly, Massei discusses the possibility that Guede himself faked the burglary. The trouble is, reading Masseei on that, and why it is unlikely that someone who'd just killed someone else would do that - all those reasons apply to Sollecito and Knox, too. Amazingly, Massei doubts that Guede would fake something in a manner in which he has an ability to do and a background for doing! - who's side is Massei on?

Ack. I missed out the point of this.... why is it that Massei even feels to need to pooh-pooh, at some length, the obviousness that Guede, himself, would not have faked a break-in? Is it not obvious that someone would NOT stage an event which is his exact M.O.? Why isn't this something that Massei dismisses with the wave of a hand?

This is where my own conspiratorial side comes out. Massei seems to go out of his way to say why a real murderer WOULD NOT stage a burglarly - and he makes little mention of the obviousness of a cat burglar not simulating a cat burglarly (the underlining is mine, not Massei's):

This Court holds that the hypothesis in which the scenario of the burglary took place through Rudy’s doing, the one and only aggressor of Meredith, does not appear to be sustainable. Rudy could well have believed that any of the occupants could have arrived in that house from one moment to the next and consequently waiting around there must have appeared very risky......

Consequently: a burglar who simulates a burglary to deflect suspicions (and who furthermore a few days before had been surprised on the property of someone else with objects belonging to other people and the police had been called) in itself seems absolutely unbelievable, and it is even more so when one considers that there were no particular reasons why suspicions could have fallen onto him........

in addition, he had been with and had danced with a girl (on Hallowe'en) who, from the description given and recorded above, was certainly not Meredith; nobody mentioned seeing him with Meredith; on November 1st Meredith spent the morning at home and the evening with her English girlfriends. Even in relation to this, therefore, Rudy must have felt at ease and consequently no reason could have motivated him to simulate a burglary.

Under other circumstances, it seems unlikely that Meredith, alone at home at night (her coming home as has been seen took place no earlier than 21:00 pm) would have opened the door to the house to Rudy and let him come in.

And then Massei agonizingly wanders into why Meredith would not have let Rudy in, losing all the impact of his argument of why "Rudy the Simulator" is at all interesting or refutable. The wandering is "i,portant to Massei's "probablies" because he has to rule out that Meredith herself let Guede in.

After a few sentences of wandering, Massei gets back to the point, repeating again his conclusion which is driving the evidence (not the other way around) that the whole point of staging a break-in was to throw of investigators:

Such a cunning scenario cannot be traced back to Rudy Guede, who on the other hand, entered the house through the entrance door, without any [48] breaking in or forcing, but with the agreement of whoever had available the house and the key to the entrance door.
Whoever permitted Rudy Guede to enter the house that night was not Meredith but others who also had the house available and could freely gain access to it.

The scenario of the broken pane and the furtive access could therefore have only been carried out by someone who, having the house available and free access to it, tried to distance himself from all suspicion, directing it to a different person; that is the unknown criminal who, through a violent act (the breaking of the window pane) was supposed to have entered the house.

And since Knox had the only readily available key, voila! Knox must have let him in, and then waited for Guede to flee before doing the clean-up and staging a break-in - a staging (but for Knox would have included the extra effort of a clean-up, such clean-up proven not to exist but necessary for Massei) which has all the risks associated with it as if Guede had delayed his flight to stage it.

This is what I mean when I say that the best way to believe Massei is not to read him.

The story is simply this. Sunce neither Knox nor Sollecito had to capacity to actually break in, and once Lumumba came into suspicion on the 6th as another with no ability to break-in, I don't think they actually investigated or closely examined Romanelli's room, to rule out a real break in. The photo evidence is not conclusive at all on the issue of glass only on top of scattered clothes, or glass on the sill. People continue to argue what's what in that - a sign that the primary evidence is not really there.

However, once Lumumba is replaced by Guede - aught-owe, not only is a real break-in eminately possible and perhaps probable, there is no need really to have Knox at the scene at all! Whereas perhaps it had to have been Knox's key to let in Lumumba, Guede had a proven track record of getting access whenever he needed.

No need for Knox and Sollecito at all. The need for a key disappears. The need for a knife from Sollecito's disappears, Guede was always packing his own. No need to completely invent a story of transporting a cooking knife just in case one was attacked by a salad on the street! Massei "probably" number 25.

So much of the "case closed" case disappears when Lumumba is not needed anymore, and Guede enters the picture.

That's what the evidence converges on. As per Hellmann-Zanetti's decision. It's not really complicated. Massei's way of looking at it is. Tronic's way of looking at it is, well, a little far fetched.

 

[Grinder]

However, to be fair it's possibly also consistent with the convoluted theory dreamed up by prosecutors (and seemingly accepted by Massei's court), whereby the "stager" held the left hand pane open inward at - say - right angles to the wall, with the left-hand interior shutter held against the open pane. The rock was then propelled against the outer face of the opened window pane (which would now be facing perpendicular to the wall, facing one of the side walls of the room). The rock would then pass through the pane and strike the exterior face of the interior shutter.

Going back to the days when Frank's blog had live comments on it, I never bought into the staged break-in either happening as portrayed by the PGP or for that matter being a significant bit of evidence against the kids.

Therefore, I haven't drilled down that much on the issue, but reading the above I wonder if that's really the theory how did the glass get on the sill and stay there?

Yes, I (and others) have suggested many times previously that it's highly possible that Filomena left her room in more of a dishevelled state that she subsequently testified to, and that she very possibly barely pulled the exterior shutters closed at all. I think this may be the case partly because Filomena may have been embarrassed about the state of her room (but this is probably of minor significance). The more significant potential factor at play here is whether Filomena was consciously or subconsciously led towards a bias against Knox. This is a fairly well-known (and demonstrable) phenomenon, whereby people "re-remember" factual evidence when a) they become convinced of the guilt (or innocence) of an individual, and where an altered version of events corresponds more closely with this belief.

Yes, my comment certainly wasn't original. I too doubt that she was trying to frame them but people are funny about being neat and tidy.

 

[Kaosium]

tronic,

Filomena might or might not have closed the shutters. Her testimony changed a little with time (RoseMontague may remember better than I do).

Filomena Romanelli stated (cf. declarations at the hearing of February 7, 2009) that when she left the house in via della Pergola 7 on the afternoon of November 1, 2007 she had closed the shutters of her window (p. 68); she had pulled them in (p. 95); "the wood was slightly swelled, so they rubbed against the windowsill" (p. 26), adding that "it was an old window...the wood rubbed". And on the day she went away, she recalled "having closed them because I knew that I would be away for a couple of days" (p. 96). She later added, when noting what she had declared on December 3, 2007, that "I had pulled the shutters together, but I don't think I closed them tight" (p. 115).

It must be held that when Filomena Romanelli left the house in via della Pergola, she had pulled the shutters towards the interior of her room, although she did not think that she had actually closed them;

As I recall Filomena was unsure until she went into an un-taped witness session with Mignini. Then she became more sure, but never certain. I think Mignini might have massaged the answer he wanted out of her.

If she did not, Guede would have to climb partway one time or open them with a stick (this may have been Dan O.'s suggestion).

Or the knife he was carrying. I can think of few better shutter-opening tools, though that seemed to have perplexed Massei:

Consequently, since the shutters had been pulled together and their rubbing put pressure on the windowsill on which they rested, it would have first been necessary to effect an operation with the specific goal of completely opening these shutters. The failure to find any instrument suitable for making such an opening (one cannot even see what type of instrument could be used to this end) leads one to assume that the wall would have to have been scaled a first time in order to effect the complete opening of the shutters ("if the shutters were closed, he could not have passed through, that is obvious", cf. declarations of the consultant for the defence, Sergeant Francesco Pasquali, p. 22 hearing July 3, 2009), in order to enable the burglar to aim at the window and smash it by throwing a large stone - the one found in Romanelli's room.

IIRC the former carabinieri officer (Pasquali, IIRC) threw the rock from the parapet, and got a reasonable distribution of glass.

Yes, Tronic should take note of the difference here. The defense shows their theory works in the real world, Massei instead just says this:

Indeed, if one supposes that the stone was thrown from the inside with the shutters pulled closed (as they must have been according to statements cited above), but with the casement holding the pane somewhat open, with the inner shutter behind it, then here is a situation analogous to that of throwing the stone from the outside (the rock would hit the window in the same place as if it came from the outside), and 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).

The presence of the shutters pulled inwards, as described by Romanelli, would have prevented the pieces of glass from falling to the ground below, as indeed they did not, but as they surely would have had the stone been thrown from the outside. 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 (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.

What does that say? Would anyone care to guess? This is Massei at his finest, obfuscation mode. I know what it says and I still can't read it! I had the assistance of a smirking Platonov to hammer it home for me, not everyone is so blessed!