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

[Grinder]

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."

Some PGP think the break-in was very difficult or impossible but more of them are very doubtful that it could be accomplished without evidence under the window, on the wall, on the grate and question the use of a 10 pound rock.

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.

The diagram clearly has Rudi higher up than the picture of the taller than Rudi lawyer at IPP.

Bill once again I ask you what evidence would you require or you think would be proof of staging? A well staged break-in would leave no evidence that it was staged. The stager could have done everything including entering the room through the window to perfectly imitate a real break-in.

The PLE looked at the glass on top of things that they thought had been tossed, they didn't find foot prints or glass below the window, they were told that the shutters were closed and nothing save the make-up was removed from the room. I think it was a fair guess that a real burglar who had enough time to toss the room also had enough time to start piling up his loot. Robbers don't find loot and leave it in place they put it in a suitcase or some carrying device.

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.

Here's where you veer off the straight and narrow. No one needs a comprehensive narrative to believe the burglary was staged or at least possibly staged

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 what? Actual perps do stage things. Look it up. Google can help.

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

Daniel Patrick Moynihan said that, so what?

What 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.

I prefer PG to "guilters" and PI to "groupies" as the expressions inside the quotes are pejorative and distort the discussion. As Sherlock said above and I have been saying here for month (oh God years?) both sides lean towards hyperbole and self congratulatory conversations.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.

I have seen nothing that shows me otherwise, Bruce Fisher even did a self video of him locking a door the way Rudy would have had to and Mary H even told me that was how she locks her door all the time, I do like Mary, but I'm not buying it. As the great captain Jack Sparrow once said, it's not probable, but not impossible. Rudy left a left shoe print.by Meredith's door for everyone to see, whoever believe in Amanda's innocence has to also believe Rudy would lock Meredith's door with his left foot pointed away from the door. No matter how unlikely this would be, you pretty much have to agree that's how he did it, otherwise, she would be guilty to some degree.

 

[Mary_H]

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.

<snip>I prefer PG to "guilters" and PI to "groupies" as the expressions inside the quotes are pejorative and distort the discussion. As Sherlock said above and I have been saying here for month (oh God years?) both sides lean towards hyperbole and self congratulatory conversations.

"Guilters" is a neutral term, not a pejorative one. There is no difference between "pro-guilt" and "guilter" or "colpevolista." Same with "pro-innocence" and "innocenter" or "innocentista."

"FOAKERS" and "groupies," on the other hand are both extremely pejorative, for obvious reasons.

 

[Mary_H]

I have seen nothing that shows me otherwise, Bruce Fisher even did a self video of him locking a door the way Rudy would have had to and Mary H even told me that was how she locks her door all the time, I do like Mary, but I'm not buying it. As the great captain Jack Sparrow once said, it's not probable, but not impossible. Rudy left a left shoe print.by Meredith's door for everyone to see, whoever believe in Amanda's innocence has to also believe Rudy would lock Meredith's door with his left foot pointed away from the door. No matter how unlikely this would be, you pretty much have to agree that's how he did it, otherwise, she would be guilty to some degree.

Thanks, Sherlock. Wow, you have a good memory; you are talking about a conversation from 3 years ago.

Not to get into the age-old footprint/door conversation again, but if you give it a try you will see one is just as likely to stand with one's left foot pointed to the left when locking a door as to stand with both feet facing the door.

Regardless of what Rudy did with his feet, though, what the heck does that have to do with Amanda?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Thanks, Sherlock. Wow, you have a good memory; you are talking about a conversation from 3 years ago.

Not to get into the age-old footprint/door conversation again, but if you give it a try you will see one is just as likely to stand with one's left foot pointed to the left when locking a door than standing with both feet facing the door.

Regardless of what Rudy did with his feet, though, what the heck does that have to do with Amanda?

Hi Mary, it has been a long time, I missed your humor. When Amanda was acquitted, I pretty much left it at that, now that it's been over turned, I'm back. I was somewhat OK when Amanda got off, my thinking was that 4 years was about right for what she did, it probably should have been her old man in there though because I believe she wanted to tell the truth but wasn't allowed to.

Anyways, to answer your question about Rudi's feet, if it wasn't him who locked the door, who was it. Sure it could have been anyone else that was there but left no signs, but they would have to take their place in the line up, behind Amanda. I have always tried looking at this case from both sides and lean towards the most likely outcome while most look at it differently, they choose guilty or innocent then bend all the facts to agree with their views

 

[Dan O.]

I have seen nothing that shows me otherwise, Bruce Fisher even did a self video of him locking a door the way Rudy would have had to and Mary H even told me that was how she locks her door all the time, I do like Mary, but I'm not buying it. As the great captain Jack Sparrow once said, it's not probable, but not impossible. Rudy left a left shoe print.by Meredith's door for everyone to see, whoever believe in Amanda's innocence has to also believe Rudy would lock Meredith's door with his left foot pointed away from the door. No matter how unlikely this would be, you pretty much have to agree that's how he did it, otherwise, she would be guilty to some degree.

That's the theory I started in these threads by looking at Rudy's footprints at the base of the bed and where the footprints lead from there. Rudy probably found two sets of keys in Meredith's purse and tested one of the keys in Meredith's door to verify that this set was hers. He then steps out, closing and locking the door behind him. Is would even be a natural unconscious move for Rudy if he had a similar lock on his own apartment door. He then walks to the front door and uses the other key on the same ring to open the front door and leave.

The other hypothesis that has been presented here is that Rudy walked out of Meredith's room to the front door leaving a trail of bloody footprints that get progressively fainter as they approach the exit. But at this point, Rudy discovers that the door is locked and returns to Meredith's room to find her keys. He they locks Meredith's door and leaves the cottage. There is no bloody footprint outside the cottage so you cannot say that there was more blood on Rudy's shoe that would have tracked back to Meredith's room.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill once again I ask you what evidence would you require or you think would be proof of staging? A well staged break-in would leave no evidence that it was staged. The stager could have done everything including entering the room through the window to perfectly imitate a real break-in.

The PLE looked at the glass on top of things that they thought had been tossed, they didn't find foot prints or glass below the window, they were told that the shutters were closed and nothing save the make-up was removed from the room. I think it was a fair guess that a real burglar who had enough time to toss the room also had enough time to start piling up his loot. Robbers don't find loot and leave it in place they put it in a suitcase or some carrying device.

And once again I will answer that meaningful forensics are impossible to determine because the bedroom was not kept in situ.

In theory, you are correct - a well-staged break-in would itself be undetectable, if done well enough. I guess. But then again, there is absolutely no evidence of a staging... other than, as you say about the guilters, evidence in the negative.

There is sits. it's one thing for you and I to have an after dinner conversation about possibilities... but forensically in the real world where jail-time is on the line for innocents.... you get my drift.

 

[Mary_H]

Hi Mary, it has been a long time, I missed your humor. When Amanda was acquitted, I pretty much left it at that, now that it's been over turned, I'm back. I was somewhat OK when Amanda got off, my thinking was that 4 years was about right for what she did, it probably should have been her old man in there though because I believe she wanted to tell the truth but wasn't allowed to.

Her old man? Do you mean Raffaele?

Anyways, to answer your question about Rudi's feet, if it wasn't him who locked the door, who was it. Sure it could have been anyone else that was there but left no signs, but they would have to take their place in the line up, behind Amanda. I have always tried looking at this case from both sides and lean towards the most likely outcome while most look at it differently, they choose guilty or innocent then bend all the facts to agree with their views

It was Rudy who locked the door.

Well, as Skeptic Ginger has said many times, either Amanda did it or she didn't, so there is no sense in trying to look at it from both sides. Contrary to popular belief, hardly anybody was pro-innocent in the beginning. Those who end up believing in innocence bend their views to agree with the facts.

 

[Dan O.]

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.

I've seen the PG trying to push the theory that TOD was delayed because of the stress of the attack and that this allows TOD to be much later than the autopsy results would indicate otherwise. But what is the point of this? It's not the TOD that matters in determining who could have been guilty. It's the time of the start of the attack. You aren't changing the time of the start of the attack by this contortion.

 

[Bill Williams]

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.

Ok... thanks for this... at least we're arguing evidence! Thanks for this.

Filomena's window is actually the easiest to get into for someone who knows what they are doing. RoseM can repost the picture of the balcony around back, which is totally exposed to the street and apartments across the road and illuminated by a streetlight. Filomena's wondow is eminently doable, and the space below supplies dark-stealth - one just needs to jump down!

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.

The grate on the window below Filomena's is a good second best to a flippin' balcony! I can only repeat my own anecdotal story of watching young guys with heavy windows going up to the third floor of our house to replace windows... not a mark on the wall, not trampled foliage underneath - and there are spots with plenty of foliage. Once again, it is arguing from the negative.

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.

Rudy himself initially said he was gone by 9:30. A limitation for it to have begun was 9 pm or so. I mean, all that evidence is readily available.

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?

I think that if the scene was properly forensically examined, you'd find more of what Massei himself called, "Amanda's biological material mixed with Meredith's blood." It's impossible to over state this - what is so suspicious of Knox's biological material in her own home, esp. the bathroom in which she shared with Meredith? That is the real headscratcher. Then with the photo which shows the Scientific Police themselves contaminating the scene with Meredith's blood.... we're talking more than proving reasonable doubt here.

But even with this, people like Dr, Mull and The Machine carpet bomb newspiece comments sections with tales of mixed blood, not just "biological material." It would be hard not to know BRMull or The Machine just from their 24/7 comments, The Machine has been doing this since 2009. BRMull eventually was banned as an editor from Wikipedia on the Meredith Kercher page for his antic around these things.

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......

The clothes she wore when the murder happened were taken off by her on the morning of the 2nd, placed on her bed when she changed to go away with Raffaele. There they lay for 46 days unexamined by the police, with the police accusing her of being involved in a bloody, horrible murder.

I actually LOVE the way you put it, Sherlock. You confess to knowing that she did the murder. And then mock her for leaving the clothes on the bed.

Ok, then, were those clothes EVER forensically examined. More importantly, was Meredith's own bloody sweatshirt ever examined? Don't you think that may have had forensic information about ALL the perps?

So, yes I am saying she left her clothes on the bed. And you make it sound like she's dumb for doing it. Wow. Talk about letting the cops off the hook!

 

[Grinder]

"Guilters" is a neutral term, not a pejorative one. There is no difference between "pro-guilt" and "guilter" or "colpevolista." Same with "pro-innocence" and "innocenter" or "innocentista."

"FOAKERS" and "groupies," on the other hand are both extremely pejorative, for obvious reasons.

I will respectfully disagree. Guilter is far different than pro guilt. It implies that they want them to be guilty. I don't doubt that many of the PGP are in fact guilters but I think using the term negatively affects the discussion.

Thanks, Sherlock. Wow, you have a good memory; you are talking about a conversation from 3 years ago.

Not to get into the age-old footprint/door conversation again, but if you give it a try you will see one is just as likely to stand with one's left foot pointed to the left when locking a door as to stand with both feet facing the door.

Regardless of what Rudy did with his feet, though, what the heck does that have to do with Amanda?

I agree with Sherlock that Rudi didn't lock the door with his back turned to it, but I think Rudi ran out of the room and house leaving the left prints and then turned around and came back after gathering himself outside. When he returned the blood on the shoes had worn off and they no longer left anything behind. He could have locked the door with normal foot positioning and no print left to see.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Mary, sorry, by old man I meant her dad, I feel she wanted to tell the truth but he wouldn't let her. You see my problem with this whole crime is that I don't believe she had anything to do with the murder, she is on trial for murder so she should be found not guilty, but I also believe she is involved somehow and had she just gone ahead and told us exactly what happened, she probably would have served 4 years and be free right now.

 

[Bill Williams]

Mary, sorry, by old man I meant her dad, I feel she wanted to tell the truth but he wouldn't let her. You see my problem with this whole crime is that I don't believe she had anything to do with the murder, she is on trial for murder so she should be found not guilty, but I also believe she is involved somehow and had she just gone ahead and told us exactly what happened, she probably would have served 4 years and be free right now.

I think this is my point above. You are entitled to your feelings. Truly.

But you could do us all a favour by supplying a comprehensive timeline that supports this view. Otherwise, how does one really argue with a "feeling"?

 

[MDDVS]

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.

This again? No, they are not the exact same as I pointed out before. You are trying to equate the guilty walking free with the framing of innocents. It's not the same thing. In fact, it is so different that most legal systems try, at least in theory, to minimize the number of occurrences of the latter even at the expense of incresing the number of the former. So no, they are not the same.

 

[Mary_H]

Mary, sorry, by old man I meant her dad, I feel she wanted to tell the truth but he wouldn't let her. You see my problem with this whole crime is that I don't believe she had anything to do with the murder, she is on trial for murder so she should be found not guilty, but I also believe she is involved somehow and had she just gone ahead and told us exactly what happened, she probably would have served 4 years and be free right now.

? She did serve four years and she is free right now.

If you want her to have had something to do with it, you are going to have to come up with something better than a belief or a feeling. You also are going to need some evidence of her dad preventing her from telling the truth.

 

[MDDVS]

I have seen nothing that shows me otherwise, Bruce Fisher even did a self video of him locking a door the way Rudy would have had to and Mary H even told me that was how she locks her door all the time, I do like Mary, but I'm not buying it. As the great captain Jack Sparrow once said, it's not probable, but not impossible. Rudy left a left shoe print.by Meredith's door for everyone to see, whoever believe in Amanda's innocence has to also believe Rudy would lock Meredith's door with his left foot pointed away from the door. No matter how unlikely this would be, you pretty much have to agree that's how he did it, otherwise, she would be guilty to some degree.

Is this for real? That's how I lock the doors all the time. Specially if I'm on a rush.

Sorry, but that doesn't prove anything.

 

[Grinder]

And once again I will answer that meaningful forensics are impossible to determine because the bedroom was not kept in situ.

Once again I tell you that makes no sense. You confuse a LCN DNA situation with something completely different. You refuse to answer what evidence of a fake burglary would be yet rant on and on about how the PLE didn't find any proof of staging. I must say Raf's "nothing is missing" remark was very suspicious but perhaps Follain disagrees.

If after the Filomena caper they had found Rudi's finger prints on something in that room particularly the window glass or frame it wouldn't have been compromised in the least. Please explain how F being allowed in her room would have compromised something specific. Do you think that most break-in scenes are undisturbed before the police arrive?

In theory, you are correct - a well-staged break-in would itself be undetectable, if done well enough. I guess. But then again, there is absolutely no evidence of a staging... other than, as you say about the guilters, evidence in the negative.

Once again what would evidence of staging be? Raf says nothing is missing when clearly he couldn't know that. Amanda's DNA is found in the room mixed with Meredith's. The rock seems way too big. Glass is found in a position that looks like it was held back by closed shutters.

Just like the motive Massei gave, you just don't like or believe the evidence and say it doesn't exist.

There is sits. it's one thing for you and I to have an after dinner conversation about possibilities... but forensically in the real world where jail-time is on the line for innocents.... you get my drift.

Having said a thousand times that I don't believe that the ILE proved their case and that much of the police work was botched I don't feel the need to prove I'm not a guilter but F going for her computer didn't compromise much at all and certainly not the whole room or case.

And you still throw out the probables but refuse to actually list the 39. Hellmann is not god to me and whether he said 39 probables or not I don't care. The vast majority of them were quotes of witnesses, expert witnesses. Such as she probably died between 8 and 2.

 

[Dan O.]

A well staged break-in would leave no evidence that it was staged. The stager could have done everything including entering the room through the window to perfectly imitate a real break-in.

Could have. But what you are forgetting is that the conditions have changed.

Before the murder, a would be burglar can case the cottage, find a big old rock and lob it through the window. He can then watch the cottage to see if there is any reaction from within and even run away and come back perhaps half an hour or more later when he's sure nobody has noticed and the police are not responding.

After the murder however, with a dead girl in the house, if you break the window and someone happens to see you or even just hear the glass break then you are caught staging the crime scene and that evidence points right back at you. Even worse, if the cops get called you are trapped in the house with the victim.

 

[Bill Williams]

Once again I tell you that makes no sense. You confuse a LCN DNA situation with something completely different. You refuse to answer what evidence of a fake burglary would be yet rant on and on about how the PLE didn't find any proof of staging. I must say Raf's "nothing is missing" remark was very suspicious but perhaps Follain disagrees.

If after the Filomena caper they had found Rudi's finger prints on something in that room particularly the window glass or frame it wouldn't have been compromised in the least. Please explain how F being allowed in her room would have compromised something specific. Do you think that most break-in scenes are undisturbed before the police arrive?

I think we're at an impasse here. Unless someone else wants to pipe up here, all I can do is repeat myself. I don't get why you do get that I don't get what you don't get.

One thing to repeat though, "evidence" of a faked burglary is definitely not that nothing was taken. That was the sum total of both Battistelli's and Filomena's reaction to her room, when they WERE looking at it in situ.

Everything after that is compromised. I simply don't "get" why you don't "get this. It is forensically useless to speculate.

So, unless someone else wants to intercede (Sherlock!?) I'm not sure what information from me you wish.

 

[Grinder]

Could have. But what you are forgetting is that the conditions have changed.

Before the murder, a would be burglar can case the cottage, find a big old rock and lob it through the window. He can then watch the cottage to see if there is any reaction from within and even run away and come back perhaps half an hour or more later when he's sure nobody has noticed and the police are not responding.

After the murder however, with a dead girl in the house, if you break the window and someone happens to see you or even just hear the glass break then you are caught staging the crime scene and that evidence points right back at you. Even worse, if the cops get called you are trapped in the house with the victim.

I agree with this. I have stated that it easily could have been Rudi before Meredith returned but that he didn't enter. Heck, he could have told her that someone had done it and he needed to help her be safe.

Of course the window was definitely broken without anyone calling the police.