Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[codyjuneau]

Yes, you are correct.... they substituted Rudy, but made him seem as if he were still Lumumba.

And guilters themselves have been speculating ever since. Instead of a known communication between Knox and Lumumba via SMS, people like Dr. Mull simply imagine a chance rendezvous/communication between Knox/Sollecito/Guede in the square. For Pete's sake, at least there is an SMS record of the Lumumba communication! The Guede one has to be imagined...

.
And unfortunately, by the time Rudy appeared, Amanda had already been so vilified by most of the world media gullible vigilantes critical thinking investigative reporters, that people were primed to believe she was capable of anything, even enlisting her boyfriend and a virtual stranger to help kill her friend and room mate for no particular reason.

 

[codyjuneau]

Nice post Cody.

Thanks Anglo. What is the scale of those squares in the popsicle stick Rudy drawing you posted? I have noticed that the cottage is deceiving to look at. Almost like it is a slightly miniature version of what it actually looks like.

Ginder: Don't forget the leaf on Filomena's window sill. Wind or Rudy, you decide.

 

[anglolawyer]

Thanks Anglo. What is the scale of those squares in the popsicle stick Rudy drawing you posted? I have noticed that the cottage is deceiving to look at. Almost like it is a slightly miniature version of what it actually looks like.

Ginder: Don't forget the leaf on Filomena's window sill. Wind or Rudy, you decide.

From the text of the engineer's intro:

Here’s my view of the Window Entry, Rock and Nail topics. I would appreciate any comments and/or corrections to the information and opinions in this document. Links to additional crime photos would also be helpful.
There seems to be a great deal of disparity with reference to the possibility of Rudy being to enter the cottage through Filomena’s widow. Some think it would take Spiderman-like capabilities and some think it would be a no-brainer. I would like to provide my input on possibility of enter the cottage through Filomena’s window which is based on Ron Henry’s scenario (http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/RonHendry------2.html). Being an engineer, I am accustomed to visualize the problem through drawings so I decided to generate a sketch of the cottage and Rudy, keeping the relative dimension as close as possible to the real thing, in other words a “drawing to scale”. I have provided a summarized rational for the various dimensions in the following paragraphs.

I started with the size of the entry window. From photos of Filomena’s window taken from inside the room, I referenced the evidence placards placed by the investigators. I then compared the 6-centimeter edge to width of the window and determined it to be approximately 12 inches wide, a total of 24 inches for both sides. The shutters appear to be 4 times longer than wide, making them about 48 inches long. Next I looked at the over-all dimensions of the outside wall containing the window. From a Kermit Power Point pitch on PMF, the inside width of the room is 3.1 meters making the outside width about 11.5 feet. Comparing the room width and window height to the overall distance from the roof peak to the room floor is little under 11 feet. For brevity, the dimensions of the lower floor were determined in a similar manner.
(see sketch below, zoom in to see the captions)

I think each square is supposed to be one square foot which would make the distance between from the centre of the window down to the ground about 10 feet.

 

[anglolawyer]

Here's another graphic from the report

 

[anglolawyer]

Also from the engineer's report:

I am 62 year old male, weighing 50 lbs more than Rudy (assume he weighs 160-165), with mildly arthritic knees and I have duplicated these maneuvers a number of times. I am confident that if it were necessary, I, personally, could gain entry through that window, though maybe not as graceful as Rudy. Considering that Rudy is in his 20’s and frequently played basketball, there is no doubt he would have no trouble whatsoever doing the same.

 

[Supernaut]

Not that it makes any difference as far as the forensic value of evidence collected afterward, but my understanding was that she went in before they'd opened Meredith's room and realized it was a murder scene. Am I wrong?

Filomena was allowed to return inside, on her own.

Look, it's very simple - in the countries I mentioned earlier, and many others, ANY and ALL cops would know the drill -

body found, usher everyone out of the building, allow no further entry by anyone except qualified investigators. It's been this way for decades.

The very fact this didn't happen is ridiculous. I've heard it said that "they had no experience with this type of crime in Perugia", as if this was the first knife murder there since 1945 or something.

It's quite apparent that the cops in Italy (at, least, those from the two forces involved in in this case) simply don't receive proper training (although they're obviously taught the "knees on subject's back and use full body weight to squeeze the wind out of them" technique to subdue people, which Frank Sfarzo could tell you about but the late Federico Aldrovandi can't.

 

[Bill Williams]

Also from the engineer's report:

I am 62 year old male, weighing 50 lbs more than Rudy (assume he weighs 160-165), with mildly arthritic knees and I have duplicated these maneuvers a number of times. I am confident that if it were necessary, I, personally, could gain entry through that window, though maybe not as graceful as Rudy. Considering that Rudy is in his 20’s and frequently played basketball, there is no doubt he would have no trouble whatsoever doing the same.

It also sounds like it would have been easier for Rudy to get in after this 62-year old went through! I'm just saying....

 

[Bill Williams]

Here's another graphic from the report

Although my guy did not have a diagram in front of him, other than what Kermit's powerpoints showed, this is why my guy kept saying, "This is doable."

Why are we even talking about this 5 1/2 years after the deed. Oh wait, they still think it was impossible for Rudy to have gone to that position three times!

Also, guilters are in a headlong rush to frame innocents. Ok, fine with me....

 

[Chris_Halkides]

thanks for the diagram

Some people talk about the climb as if it were the north face of the Eiger.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Also, guilters are in a headlong rush to frame innocents. Ok, fine with me....

Also, FOAKERs are in a headlong rush to let the guilty walk free. Ok, fine with me.....

See anything similar.... The Guilters and the Foakers are the exact same, just with opposite views. There are some good people on both sides, and some very smart people as well, but then again, there are idiots as well on both sides, it's not hard to sort out the two. Both sides feel they are right, some come to argue regardless, and some come to discuss.

 

[Bill Williams]

Also, guilters are in a headlong rush to frame innocents. Ok, fine with me....

Also, FOAKERs are in a headlong rush to let the guilty walk free. Ok, fine with me.....

See anything similar.... The Guilters and the Foakers are the exact same, just with opposite views. There are some good people on both sides, and some very smart people as well, but then again, there are idiots as well on both sides, it's not hard to sort out the two. Both sides feel they are right, some come to argue regardless, and some come to discuss.

What you could do, Sherlock, to advance this is to present a comprehensive narrative which takes into account the evidence.

You see, it is not a level playing field. In 5 1/2 years no one, not the prosecution not Judge Massei, has been able to put together a comprehensive narrative which takes into account the evidence.

It is more than just photos, taken by the Scientific police themselves, which show them in the act of contaminating the crimescene - it is more than just the claims that Rudy could never have gone in that window, when everyone else in the world says it was a slam dunk...

You see, you cannot just resort to, "Well you have your opinion and I have my opinion." You can have your opinion, but you cannot have the evidence. But if that's what you came here to do, assert the right to have an opinion regardless of the evidence, then all I can really say is, "good for you!"

Let's start with five things which should be undisputed. Why should they be undisputed? Because they come from the Massei motivations report, from the very judge who convicted the pair.

1) there is no mixed blood at the scene
2) there is no forensic trace at all of Amanda in the murder room
3) there is no psychopathology found at all in either Raffaele or Amanda
4) there was never any bad relationship between Knox and Kercher
5) there was no motive for Knox or Sollecito, only for Guede​

If we cannot start at that place, then I don't know what to say, really. Since the SC has quashed the Hellmann acquittals, and we have not yet seen what it is about Hellmann's decision, in law, caused this - it is best to at least cycle back to the last known, judicially upheld findings of fact. Once we find out what it was Hellmann erred on, there will be the other stuff that Hellmann found as factual which will remain... but I do not want to anticipate.

There's lots of other stuff which Massei found which a new appeals court will render judgement on. And, I fully concede that a new appeals court could very well overturn those five things, one or more, that are listed above. In Italy that's what the 2nd level appeals' court does.

But none of this is a matter of opinion Sherlock. You could actually do us all a favour if you become the one who actually DOES demonstrate guilt, rather than simply say, "I'm entitled to my opinion."

My take on this is that guilters ARE in a headlong rush to frame innocents - and why do I say this? I do not say it out of the blue... I say it because in 5 1/2 years there are few theories as to why, it is usually character assassination type stuff... cartwheels, putting booties on and saying hoopla, things like because you don't like the person, this automatically translates into her being a murderer.

So please, Sherlock, take your namesake's advice and show us WHY you hold the position you do, rather than just assert your right to have an opinion.

That's what I mean by, "good for you." What's the evidence?

It's not a level playing field. Facts tend to tilt things....

 

[Dan O.]

From the text of the engineer's intro:


I think each square is supposed to be one square foot which would make the distance between from the centre of the window down to the ground about 10 feet.

Here are the dimensions that I calculated using a 3 dimensional model constructed from multiple photos:

Calculated dimensions

(in meters based on size of broken opening .27 x .53)
width =.70 (.35 per side)
depth (thickness) = .04
frame hight = .04
frame width (est) = .04
green shutter width = .78
distance to corner of house = 1.10
Hight of sill above top bar = 1.51?
Hight above top of lower casement - 1.15
Lower window is centered on right edge of upper window.
Hight above ground 3.09+
Hight of window 1.30
​

I tried first using the placards for the scale but it was difficult to adjust for their orientation and the blurry edges were difficult to mark precisely.

 

[anglolawyer]

Also, FOAKERs are in a headlong rush to let the guilty walk free. Ok, fine with me.....

See anything similar.... The Guilters and the Foakers are the exact same, just with opposite views. There are some good people on both sides, and some very smart people as well, but then again, there are idiots as well on both sides, it's not hard to sort out the two. Both sides feel they are right, some come to argue regardless, and some come to discuss.

There is no such equivalence. They are wrong and we are right.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Well, here are some things I believe are possible, but not written in stone

1) I don't believe Amanda or Ralf had anything to do with the murder
2) Amanda and Ralf did not stay at Raf's house that evening
3) The broken window may or may not have been staged, it really does not matter, if staged, Amanda and Ralf did it, but it does not matter, I'm leaning towards Rudi broke in before Meredith came home, the reason it does not matter is because of #4
4) Amanda or Raf, definitely locked Meredith's door, I can see no other alternative to this
5) The mistake Amanda and Ralf made, was not calling the police the night it happened. I believe there was a reason for this initially, but when it became apparent there was a murder, it was too late, or so they thought.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

There is no such equivalence. They are wrong and we are right.

That was an excellent reply.

 

[Bill Williams]

Also, FOAKERs are in a headlong rush to let the guilty walk free. Ok, fine with me.....

See anything similar.... The Guilters and the Foakers are the exact same, just with opposite views. There are some good people on both sides, and some very smart people as well, but then again, there are idiots as well on both sides, it's not hard to sort out the two. Both sides feel they are right, some come to argue regardless, and some come to discuss.

Ok - let's keep this simple. Guilters, in part, say that the break-in had to have been staged because no one could have climbed in through Filomena's window. One guilter even put together an impressive powerpoint presentation to make the point. One guilter said, "Unless I can be shown how Rudy could have levitated 30 feet in the air, I will refuse to believe he broke in."

FOAKers, on the other hand, cite the avalanche of evidence, including the graphic of the scenario above with accurate dimensions, showing Rudy already up to shoulder height at Filomena's window. Rudy also has a known background for doing more difficult break-ins.

It's not just that we have conflicting opinions. Both our opinions should be evidence driven, and they should cash out into a comprehensive narrative which explains the crime.

You should read John Douglas. And not even the book where he deals directly with the Kercher murder. As a former FBI profiler, he worked on the West Memphis 3 case, and actually worked for both sides in the JonBenet Ramsay case.

He takes the point of view that police should not so much work from intellectual theories about cases, but by following what the actual perps do, and how they themselves describe the crimes they commit.

From his own vast experience, he's concluded that the case against Knox and Sollecito is bollocks, from start to finish.

So..... who's opinion should people be listening to? People actually ARE entitled to an opinion, but they are not entitled to the facts.

And for me, and this is only my own opinion, this explains why guilters rarely argue the facts - and when they do, they almost never offer a comprehensive timeline which explains the evidence of guilt. Dr. Mull on PMF is one who tries... and he's at least now conceded that T.O.D. has to be before 10 pm.

He, though, also argues mixed blood, and has Amanda Knox smearing Meredith's blood in the bathroom, with NO evidence to support that claim, except that he assumes her guilty. It also misses that he's claiming that Amanda was smeared with the victim's blood, as would be expected in a grisly crime like this.

Yet the clothes Knox wore lay on her own bed for 46 days unexamined, and were repeatedly photographed by the police. There is no forensic trace of the murder on the person of Amanda Knox or her clothes.... so on what basis does Dr. Mull claim that Knox is the source of the victim's blood in the bathroom?

Dr. Mull is actually arguing against the evidence to make his point.

But I grant you, he's entitled to his opinion.

 

[Grinder]

Nice post Cody.

Funny thing is they did do the proper re-think but not in the way you meant. And even funnier, they were doing it before the swap as well as after, deleting Lumuma's SMS (a claim Amanda's lawyers better not have chopped out of her book) fishing out the knife and 'finding' stuff on it. Like Alice in Wonderland where sentence comes before trial.

Pfffft!

 

[Dan O.]

...
4) Amanda or Raf, definitely locked Meredith's door, I can see no other alternative to this

In order for you to substantiate that claim you need at a minimum to list all the counter scenarios that have been given for Rudy to have locked that door and show how they are not possible. A complete analysis would also show that there can be no other scenario. You've been following this case so you should already know most of those scenarieos. Let's see your analysis.

 

[bookworm]

Actually, I wouldn't put it past the cops to commit those burglaries themselves just to prove no sensible burglar would use F's window. I'm serious.

LOL - My thought EXACTLY!

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Ok - let's keep this simple. Guilters, in part, say that the break-in had to have been staged because no one could have climbed in through Filomena's window. One guilter even put together an impressive powerpoint presentation to make the point. One guilter said, "Unless I can be shown how Rudy could have levitated 30 feet in the air, I will refuse to believe he broke in.

I have not heard that one, it couldn't be done? I have heard that there is a must easier window to break in around back, and that the evidence points to no one leaving any trace of climbing up that wall, trampled foliage under window, broken glass under window, glass left on ledge and so on.

FOAKers, on the other hand, cite the avalanche of evidence, including the graphic of the scenario above with accurate dimensions, showing Rudy already up to shoulder height at Filomena's window. Rudy also has a known background for doing more difficult break-ins.

Rudy did break into a place through a second floor window, but why would you use this as an example, he climbed up onto a balcony to gain access to that window, same as he would have had to do in the back.

And for me, and this is only my own opinion, this explains why guilters rarely argue the facts - and when they do, they almost never offer a comprehensive timeline which explains the evidence of guilt. Dr. Mull on PMF is one who tries... and he's at least now conceded that T.O.D. has to be before 10 pm.

I agree T.O.D. was before 10:00 as well, but why, no one knows how long this attack went on for, we have a good idea when it started only.

He, though, also argues mixed blood, and has Amanda Knox smearing Meredith's blood in the bathroom, with NO evidence to support that claim, except that he assumes her guilty. It also misses that he's claiming that Amanda was smeared with the victim's blood, as would be expected in a grisly crime like this.

I have no idea who this Dr Mull is, I have heard his name mentioned before but are you saying that there are not 5 samples where Amanda and Meredith's DNA are mixed in the cottage?

Yet the clothes Knox wore lay on her own bed for 46 days unexamined, and were repeatedly photographed by the police. There is no forensic trace of the murder on the person of Amanda Knox or her clothes.... so on what basis does Dr. Mull claim that Knox is the source of the victim's blood in the bathroom?

The cloths Knox wore, when? During the murder? Are you saying that she left the cloths she wore during the murder laid out on her bed for the police to find, not to bright that young girl, you have to admit......