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

[yimyammer]

How do you estimate the chance at 1 percent? Pulling that out of the sky?
Why not say 90%? You have no idea of the percentage, you are just making it up.

But you're right about one thing, outside in the dark is different than a lighted hallway. How many keys were on Meredith's key ring? 3 maybe 4 at the most? Doesn't sound all that difficult to me. Why is it needed that Rudy turns his feet? It is very easy to turn at the waist. Why is that so hard to conceive?

But if the lock is giving you trouble, that is a different thing. And outside Rudy surely would feel more vulnerable.

Perhaps a dumb question already answered previously, but were Meredith's keys missing? Where they found in the flat or elsewhere?

BTW, while not inconceivable, it does seem like an awkward way to lock a door (with one's back to the door twisting while facing forward to insert the key doesn't seem natural, IMHO)

 

[acbytesla]

Your making me look here, now come on, I said 'even if' and 'of something' regarding the 1percent. I'm also guessing no hall light but light outside by front door, why do you say lighted hallway? And try it if you haven't already, again, not impossible, just highly improbable.

AGAIN..What makes it highly improbable? Just because you say it is highly improbable doesn't make it so. In fact, it doesn't seem the least bit improbable to me. What? Is your body locked and doesn't turn at the waist? And since the footprints fade as they head to the door, couldn't Rudy have returned to the bedroom door?

There is no way to determine whether Rudy just turned at the waist or returned to the door and there is no way to assess probabilities either.

I find the idea that the break in was staged to be extremely improbable and see no justification. Don't you think it is also extremely improbable that Amanda and Raffaele both had other plans on November 1st but still managed to hook up with Rudy Guede without calling him or texting him?

Don't you also find it extremely unlikely that three people who didn't know each other or barely knew each other would cover for each other at all?

There are lots of things that are extremely unlikely in this case. Rudy swiveling at his waist or returning the bedroom door to lock it is not really one of them.

 

[acbytesla]

Perhaps a dumb question already answered previously, but were Meredith's keys missing? Where they found in the flat or elsewhere?

BTW, while not inconceivable, it does seem like an awkward way to lock a door (with one's back to the door twisting while facing forward to insert the key doesn't seem natural, IMHO)

I'm pretty sure that her keys like the knife that killed her were never found.

And his back was not to the door. Rudy's footprint is at about a 90 degree angle to the door. Rudy merely has to make a 45 degree turn with his upper body reach out and lock the door. Not the slightest bit difficult.

 

[yimyammer]

I'm pretty sure that her keys like the knife that killed her were never found.

And his back was not to the door. Rudy's footprint is at about a 90 degree angle to the door. Rudy merely has to make a 45 degree turn with his upper body reach out and lock the door. Not the slightest bit difficult.

thx, it would be nice if the photos of the foorprints in relation to the door could be shown as part of the discussion.

The language barrier, limited access to the actual evidence presented at trial (transcripts, photos, etc) makes trying to understand this case similar to having one eye closed with both hands tied behind my back.

 

[acbytesla]

thx, it would be nice if the photos of the foorprints in relation to the door could be shown as part of the discussion.

The language barrier, limited access to the actual evidence presented at trial (transcripts, photos, etc) makes trying to understand this case similar to having one eye closed with both hands tied behind my back.

I haven't seen any good pictures of the shoe prints in the hallway. They are in fact extremely light and very difficult to see. The description of the shoe print 90 degrees away from the door comes from the Massei and Hellman decisions.

If you go to http://www.injusticeinperugia.com/footprints-01.html, you can read some of the details about the footprints. You can also read about shoe and footprints and more at http://hellmannreport.wordpress.com/contents/.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Perhaps a dumb question already answered previously, but were Meredith's keys missing? Where they found in the flat or elsewhere?

BTW, while not inconceivable, it does seem like an awkward way to lock a door (with one's back to the door twisting while facing forward to insert the key doesn't seem natural, IMHO)

The keys were never found.

He might have reached the front door before he realized he needed them to get out, so he went back for them and decided to lock the bedroom door for good measure. I hardly think that's a stretch. It's unusual to have inside locks that require a key. Where I live it would be against the fire code.

 

[yimyammer]

The keys were never found.

He might have reached the front door before he realized he needed them to get out, so he went back for them and decided to lock the bedroom door for good measure. I hardly think that's a stretch. It's unusual to have inside locks that require a key. Where I live it would be against the fire code.

thx, this strikes me as a plausible scenario

This is what's troubling about this case and perhaps what makes its so compelling to all sides because each side can postulate a scenario that supports their view on the case with a lot of the evidence but can rarely say with 100% assurance what actually happened because with the limited information, we are forced to speculate.

Reminds me of discussions about the assassination of JFK and whether it was a lone shooter or a conspiracy. Both sides can put forth lengthy, even persuasive arguments but seemingly nothing can be proved definitively so the debate rages on for decades and perhaps forever. Like this case, I happen to fall on the side of there being one perpetrator but there are obviously a huge number of folks who would disagree. Barring some miraculous revelation, i think the debate will rage on forever without either side ever ceding any ground.

It's still interesting nonetheless.

I just hope for all parties truly effected by this case that the Italian courts can somehow eventually land on the truth, whether by accident or an honest pursuit of justice.

 

[acbytesla]

The keys were never found.

He might have reached the front door before he realized he needed them to get out, so he went back for them and decided to lock the bedroom door for good measure. I hardly think that's a stretch. It's unusual to have inside locks that require a key. Where I live it would be against the fire code.

I guess I don't understand why it is necessary to be standing towards a door to lock it. In fact I just tried it out in my hallway. The only door it made sense to have your feet pointing directly toward the door was the one at the end of the hallway. The doors alongside the hallway would be extremely easy to lock or unlock by just reaching out with your hand. In fact you don't even have to turn your body towards the door at all.

 

[yimyammer]

I guess I don't understand why it is necessary to be standing towards a door to lock it. In fact I just tried it out in my hallway. The only door it made sense to have your feet pointing directly toward the door was the one at the end of the hallway. The doors alongside the hallway would be extremely easy to lock or unlock by just reaching out with your hand. In fact you don't even have to turn your body towards the door at all.

I haven't seen the direction of the footprints, so I thought they implied his back would have been to the door, which I think everyone would agree would be unnatural but not impossible.

If the footprints show that he was perpendicular to the door (i.e. sideways), then I don't see a problem with that scenario, even though I would be inclined to think I would face a door I was trying to lock (or unlock) with a key.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I guess I don't understand why it is necessary to be standing towards a door to lock it. In fact I just tried it out in my hallway. The only door it made sense to have your feet pointing directly toward the door was the one at the end of the hallway. The doors alongside the hallway would be extremely easy to lock or unlock by just reaching out with your hand. In fact you don't even have to turn your body towards the door at all.

I'm attaching a photo of the print that was found directly outside the door.

It's possible to say that Guede walked from Meredith's room toward the kitchen with blood on his left shoe. There's a cluster of faint shoe prints in the kitchen/common area, suggesting that he did something other than proceed directly to the exit. Exactly what is anyone's guess. I could argue that X, which supports my theory, is more probable than Y, which supports someone else's theory. But it's all BS. The big picture, as told by the totality of the evidence at the crime scene, is clear:

- He broke into the place.
- He attacked Meredith when she arrived home.
- He performed some kind of sexual assault after he cut her throat.
- He cleaned himself up in the bathroom.
- He went through her purse.
- He locked her bedroom door.
- He fled the scene.

Every element of the crime scene supports that scenario. But the crime scene does not resolve every last detail.

 

[acbytesla]

I haven't seen the direction of the footprints, so I thought they implied his back would have been to the door, which I think everyone would agree would be unnatural but not impossible.

If the footprints show that he was perpendicular to the door (i.e. sideways), then I don't see a problem with that scenario, even though I would be inclined to think I would face a door I was trying to lock (or unlock) with a key.

I get it yammer. I would think so too, at first thought. But in practice, I found it to be just as simple to lock the door from the side and not unnatural at all. Consider Rudy is in the bathroom at the end of the hall. So heading toward the front door with the keys in the hand (right hand) closest to the door. He just reaches out with his hand and slides the key into the lock, locks the door quickly and just keeps on walking. Easy peasy.

 

[Dan O.]

For the keys, Meredith would have had 2. The key to her room and the key to the front door. Meredith also had the keys to the boys appartment below which was described in one news report as "two keys connected by a ring". So at a minimum, Rudy would have been faced with 4 keys.

It is likely that the downstairs is configured similarly to the upstairs so the two sets of keys would appear indistinguishable. It's an easy guess that one set is Meredith's and that the apropriate key on that set will unlock the front door while the other set will be useless here.

Who can think of a simple test that will determine which set of keys belongs to Meredith? I believe Rudy though of an answer that allowed the test to be performed where there was light and the footprints show evidence of his carrying out that test.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

thx, this strikes me as a plausible scenario

This is what's troubling about this case and perhaps what makes its so compelling to all sides because each side can postulate a scenario that supports their view on the case with a lot of the evidence but can rarely say with 100% assurance what actually happened because with the limited information, we are forced to speculate.

Reminds me of discussions about the assassination of JFK and whether it was a lone shooter or a conspiracy. Both sides can put forth lengthy, even persuasive arguments but seemingly nothing can be proved definitively so the debate rages on for decades and perhaps forever.

It has been proved. People just won't accept the proof, because it's not what they want to believe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSBXW1-VGmM

"You can talk about all the theories you want, but this thing happened only one way."

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I mean, how vociferous have you been in Knox's innocent of the murder? Wht was the reaction?

I don't even mention it there because that's not what I go there for, I'm sure I would get banned like others, I'm there to learn, I seldom post.

 

[yimyammer]

I get it yammer. I would think so too, at first thought. But in practice, I found it to be just as simple to lock the door from the side and not unnatural at all. Consider Rudy is in the bathroom at the end of the hall. So heading toward the front door with the keys in the hand (right hand) closest to the door. He just reaches out with his hand and slides the key into the lock, locks the door quickly and just keeps on walking. Easy peasy.

gotcha, duly noted

 

[yimyammer]

It has been proved. People just won't accept the proof, because it's not what they want to believe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSBXW1-VGmM

"You can talk about all the theories you want, but this thing happened only one way."

and that's my point in regard to this case (Meredith Kercher's murder)

 

[Grinder]

Tesla what proof of staging would you consider is needed. Should there be a signed note saying we staged this?

Normal signs of staging would include nothing missing. Glass on top of things that were tossed before the glass was broken. No signs of climbing the wall.

We've had this before and you and most here reject them.

The shoeprints at a 90 degree to the door would be a very odd way to lock a door. They would be the position that feet would be in with one's back to the door. I highly doubt that whoever locked the door wasn't facing it or at least being parallel to it.

The most likely scenario if one believes Rudi did the killing is that he left the room leaving prints, came to the front door realized he needed the keys and went back to get them and by that time wasn't leaving prints.

There is nothing in the physical evidence that indicates anyone other than the murderer locked the door. If you believe Rudi killed then he locked the door; if you think Amanda did it then she locked the door.

The door being locked and the shoeprints at a 90 to the door proves nothing.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

AGAIN..What makes it highly improbable? Just because you say it is highly improbable doesn't make it so. In fact, it doesn't seem the least bit improbable to me. What? Is your body locked and doesn't turn at the waist? And since the footprints fade as they head to the door, couldn't Rudy have returned to the bedroom door?

Apparently, only those who find Amanda innocent will not find it highly improbable, and for good reason, but just for the heck of it, try it on anyone else. And no, his footprints would have faded, but that is where they would have shown up with the luminal, but they didn't.

[/QUOTE]There is no way to determine whether Rudy just turned at the waist or returned to the door and there is no way to assess probabilities either. [/QUOTE]

Well, he didn't return to the door unless he took his shoes off, highly unlikely, again, but not impossible, and like I said, yes he could turn at the waist but especially since he didn't know what key to use, hallway probably dark, likely in a hurry, that's not to likely either.

[/QUOTE]I find the idea that the break in was staged to be extremely improbable and see no justification. Don't you think it is also extremely improbable that Amanda and Raffaele both had other plans on November 1st but still managed to hook up with Rudy Guede without calling him or texting him?[/QUOTE]

I originally said the beak in could go either way, but if Rudy did not lock Meredith's door, and that looks highly likely to me, then the front door was open for him to leave, who opened it?

[/QUOTE]Don't you also find it extremely unlikely that three people who didn't know each other or barely knew each other would cover for each other at all? [/QUOTE]

Raf and Amanda are not covering for anyone, they can't say it was Rudi, how would they know unless they were there, and Rudi does say Amanda and Raf were there, and did it.

[/QUOTE]There are lots of things that are extremely unlikely in this case. Rudy swiveling at his waist or returning the bedroom door to lock it is not really one of them.[/QUOTE]

Not if you believe Amanda stayed at Rafs place all night, which I don't.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

thx, this strikes me as a plausible scenario

This is what's troubling about this case and perhaps what makes its so compelling to all sides because each side can postulate a scenario that supports their view on the case with a lot of the evidence but can rarely say with 100% assurance what actually happened because with the limited information, we are forced to speculate.

Reminds me of discussions about the assassination of JFK and whether it was a lone shooter or a conspiracy. Both sides can put forth lengthy, even persuasive arguments but seemingly nothing can be proved definitively so the debate rages on for decades and perhaps forever. Like this case, I happen to fall on the side of there being one perpetrator but there are obviously a huge number of folks who would disagree. Barring some miraculous revelation, i think the debate will rage on forever without either side ever ceding any ground.

It's still interesting nonetheless.

I just hope for all parties truly effected by this case that the Italian courts can somehow eventually land on the truth, whether by accident or an honest pursuit of justice.

This is the best post I've here in quite a while, well done.

 

[acbytesla]

Tesla what proof of staging would you consider is needed. Should there be a signed note saying we staged this?

Normal signs of staging would include nothing missing. Glass on top of things that were tossed before the glass was broken. No signs of climbing the wall.

We've had this before and you and most here reject them.

The shoeprints at a 90 degree to the door would be a very odd way to lock a door. They would be the position that feet would be in with one's back to the door. I highly doubt that whoever locked the door wasn't facing it or at least being parallel to it.

The most likely scenario if one believes Rudi did the killing is that he left the room leaving prints, came to the front door realized he needed the keys and went back to get them and by that time wasn't leaving prints.

There is nothing in the physical evidence that indicates anyone other than the murderer locked the door. If you believe Rudi killed then he locked the door; if you think Amanda did it then she locked the door.

The door being locked and the shoeprints at a 90 to the door proves nothing.

First let's start with the so called staging. I've seen pictures of the wall. The wall is discolored and dirty. I don't believe a thorough examination on the wall ever took place. The minimal visual inspection does not preclude the possibility that some transfer of materials from the ground were on the wall and went unnoticed. And if you are walking on vegetation from below, how much transfer would you expect to be found?

You would expect glass to be found on top of the clothes if they clothes were there before the window was broken. There is nothing unusual about this.

As to the shoe prints being at a 90 degree angle, your back would not be facing the door.

I find the idea of staging to be ridiculous. There is no reason even if Amanda and Raffaele or Rudy did this to "stage anything". The simple fact that door is open and unlocked is enough to demonstrate an intrusion. So called staging by breaking the window accomplishes nothing.