• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Good point, don't you think its odd that she didn't mention she was meeting Rudy to the friends she was having dinner with right before? All the women I've known love to talk about guys together so I find it strange that she kept mum on this if we are expected to believe Rudy's account of events

Look I put out this scenario as an a possibility as Rudi claimed he had an arrangement with her. In that scenario he too thought or worried she had told her friends. It seems that Meredith wasn't a chatty Cathy and from what we know of her I can easily imagine that she wouldn't tell her friends as this meeting would be kept between the two of them.

The scenario is basically that Rudi went to meet her. Both of them would want to keep it on the QT but after she rejected him or something else went wrong and the violence occurred he worried that your speculation that she might have told her friends entered his mind.

He then thought he needed cover and decided to stage a burglary and used his timed tested MO. The fact that the high window and large rock were chosen points more to Rudi than the kids. What a bummer of a coincidence for Rudi that the kids used his exact MO.

Why wouldn't the kids just leave the balcony door unlocked. I think it highly unlikely that they would think to stage a break-in. If they did, why wouldn't they do it where the cottage had been broken in several times?

Personally, I think Rudi broke the window with the rock from the outside. i don't believe in her rush to leave Filomena did close the shutters. Remember she had Raf and Amanda wrap her gift. He waited nearby and Meredith came home and he entered through the front door.

If Filomena's window is not a possible entry point, why are there bars on the window now?
 
DrTesla's Gish gallop really is a non-stop playlist of blasts from the past.

It's been ages since I've seen someone try to argue that there's no such thing as an internalised false statement, on the basis that such statements are usually confessions and hence are usually referred to as internalised false confessions.

There's an interesting sociological element to the evolution and propagation of these pro-guilt memes. A major plank of the pro-guilt story fell over when the JREF community did the legwork to establish that Amanda's false statement had many of the characteristics associated with internalised false statements, and was elicited by exactly the discredited and dangerous interrogation methods known to produce such internalised false statements. The pro-guilt community needed some talking point to respond to this so they could retain their belief in the evidentiary importance of Amanda's statement, but the best they could come up with was this purely semantic quibble. But since it's the best they've got it has been taken up and copied slavishly by the pro-guilt community and now they all quibble the same quibble.

It's illustrative of the difference between the rationalist and anti-rationalist world views. The rationalist abandons a belief when the evidence turns against it. The anti-rationalist makes up some new, ancillary belief to protect the threatened belief and goes on with their beliefs essentially unchanged by the evidence.

lol, that's funny, I've never heard that term before

interesting post/thx
 
all I know is that in the USA, if a black guy was imprisoned for murder but the two rich white people were not, there would be riots in the streets. Knox acts like she would have been found innocent over here but there would be all kinds of political pressure to find her guilty here with this racial dynamic that doesn't appear to exist in Italy. what's funny to m e is that all of the liberals touting her innocence would think she was guilty if this happened in the states, based on the race angle alone.


You know, I'm quite appalled by the casual racism inherent in this and a number of other related posts.

Rolfe.
 
Sure, I don't believe Amanda or Raff killed or wanted to kill anyone that night or any night, however, they are not telling the truth, they did not stay home, Toto the hobo did see them ,Amanda did most likely let Rudi into the house before she ran away, leaving the front door open, lied about any involvement and basically took a bad situation and made it a lot worse. Amanda locked Meredith's door, staged the break in and lied thru her teeth the rest of the way.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. Yet the scenario seems to turn on whether or not someone can lock a door with their left heel pointing towards it. Like I said upthread, I have seen this done... is it likely? Perhaps not. But there are also all sorts of other explanations for how the door got locked, as per upthread.

I guess it's an interesting exercise. My question is why would Raffaele not turn against Knox if he knew she was hiding something? There's no realistic scenario to explain Raffaele's own conviction that Amanda is innocent, has told everyone what she knows, and Raffaele is satisfied with that; as per his book.

He knows he did not go out. In prison he figured out that Knox could not have gone out either. Whatever you think of the truth of Sollecito's claim, he did 4 years in jail sticking to his story; and risked another 21 because as he said he would not lie.

There is NO scenario that has either of them involved which would explain that.

That's where I am at.
 
Long ago, right around the time someone PM'd you to look at this case, the theory was proposed that Mignini's time of death (he extended it to 11:30 to allow for Curatolo's testimony, Massei had to add ~15 minutes because Mignini forgot to allow time for the murder!) might be possible were Meredith to be tortured for hours. According to their sources that would slow or stop (they liked this one best) digestion due to the acute stress and thus the fact that Meredith's last meal stayed completely in her stomach and never started into the duodenum wasn't suggestive of a much earlier time of death.

Despite the fact there's no evidence of said torture, nor of the necessary restraints, and that it doesn't actually work like that, there were some who thought anyone not taking this seriously into account was a lying FOAKer who couldn't be trusted on any subject regarding the murder. Apparently there are more 'reasonable' sites where this scenario is part of the 'established wisdom' regarding the case and it falsifies the likelihood of an earlier time of death.

I kid you not.


It's a silly point.

First, although tension or apprehension can slow digestion, it's far from an invariable occurrence. Fear and terror are more likely to cause hyper-motility of the digestive tract - vomiting and diarrhoea. As I said, I have extensive experience with animals caught live in traps and struggling to get free, and intestinal stasis is not a feature.

Second, the results of Meredith's post mortem show an entirely normal state of digestion for a meal eaten relatively recently, complete with recognisable fragments of what was known to have been eaten. This isn't food that has been held in the acid stomach environment for an abnormally long time.

Third, that idea, even if it were true, requires someone to have been torturing Meredith from shortly after 9 pm, when she returned home. Who was this person? Why are there no signs of prolonged restraint on Meredith's body? Where do Knox and Sollecito fit into this imaginative scenario?

Fourth, bear in mind the people in the parked car. Are we really supposed to believe that someone was torturing a girl in that cottage starting from before they got there, and she was alive and being tortured all that time, and yet they noticed nothing?

All this speculation for no reason at all other than to continue to twist the evidence to try to implicate Knox and Sollecito, even though the straightforward facts show Meredith was dead before 9.30.

Weird.

Rolfe.
 
Yeah, but it doesn't look anything like shoes she had and did look like a partial print of Rudy's. It was the size that was similar, nothing else was.


my thought as well




Not quite, autosomal STR is what most think of when DNA analysis is mentioned in court cases, it's the test that can (sometimes) determine who the contributor is with a confidence that it was them or their identical twin. This test for the bra clasp test was based on partial data and as such could have matched one in four people in the courtroom as Conti or Vechiotti said at the appeal. Worthless, too many contributors, too small a sample, too much (almost certainly) masked.

It wasn't accepted at the Massei court either, he relied in the Y-haplotype which is not something that can identify to that degree, more like a blood test. Just how rare Raffaele's Y-haplotype is was unknown in 2011 (there's a database we checked but its incomplete) but there's enough of them that odds are that Y-haplotype suggests it was Raffaele's DNA. That doesn't mean that DNA means anything though, this is not the sort of DNA testing that is used in American and British courts.



Yes, kind of,though there are many more Y-haplotypes than blood types. However keep in mind even if it was one of a thousand that in Perugia there's a hundred thousand people, thus a hundred people could have also have contributed that Y-haplotype. When you consider all the people we know were in that cottage just after the murder, all the Police, technicians, the boys who were at the discovery, the prosecution, the photographers etc each and every one of them increases the chance that one might have the same Y-haplotype. It's kind of like the fact that of a class of thirty people, odds are someone will share your birthday, it's not like it becomes 30 of 365 when calculating the probability.

My guess is the odds would indicate that Y-haplotype suggests it was Raffaele's DNA, but that's off incomplete information. It's certainly neither definite or anywhere close to that, just a balance of probabilities shooting in the dark.



The obvious one is contamination, it laid in a pile of dust and trash for weeks on end with stuff blowing around, that's (very probably) why there's a total of four males in the clasp. For that trace amount of Raffaele's Y-haplotype to mean anything it has to suggest he was actually the one who put it there, meaning he touched the bra clasp. That's why C&V found it unreliable, there's no reason to think Raffaele (and three other men) touched that tiny bra clasp, but under the edge of a dirty rug is an excellent place to find the sorts of things that might transmit trace and partial DNA.

Also Stefanoni's lab wasn't equipped to handle LCN/LT DNA, trace DNA transfers (and thus contaminates) much easier It's the difference between something that might adhere from me to you when the wind is blowing and me having to hock a lugie in your face to get a decent transfer. HUGE difference. Contamination with LT/LCN is not a rare occurrence, it's something that special (beyond sterile) conditions must be employed to try to prevent. C&V go into that here.








Lo and behold when the independent experts went to re-test the bra clasp and reproduce her results they found:




One rule of scientific work is reproducibility. When real scientists do tests like this there's samples left that can be retested years--or decades--later, you've probably heard of re-tests exonerating people. Neither of these pieces of evidence, hailed as the best evidence against them, could ever be re-tested,and one decayed in storage under the auspices of the one who presented such dubious work in court, and there's definite reason (like she testified to it in court!) to think she knew better.


Interesting, complicated stuff. Does anyone know where the C&V report stands in terms of evidence? The pro-guilt guy at the other forum claims its now completely worthless as is the Hellman report because of the Supreme Court (or whatever the italian court is called) threw out/over ruled Hellmans verdict.

Note that he's trying to figure out if Amanda had taken it, he's not trying to say it's any excuse for himself, nor does he have any reason to think anyone else will see it outside possibly his sister and father if he so chooses. At this juncture he's been writing about how he's hearing reports of Amanda hanging out with Argentianians at the laundry, and of course he can't be sure she didn't get up and murder anyone while he was sleeping. He hears about the knife in the previous entry and wonders if Amanda actually did kill Meredith, or give his knife to someone who did, and his lawyer tells him it's nothing to worry about and perhaps Amanda took the knife to the cottage as she needed it for cooking. This is a cheap common kitchen knife, 5.95 at the Italian Wal-mart, it didn't even belong to Raffaele, it came with the furnished apartment, he may never have used it, might not even been sure what it looked like. Here's the previous diary entry which I was going to post but decided not as I feared one more cite might be fatal: (:p)



So he takes Tizano's assumption that Amanda could have borrowed the knife for innocent purposes and recalls a moment when he was cooking at the cottage and brushed Meredith and figures that must be the answer to why there's that DNA on the knife. He must have brushed her with that knife and if Amanda told him she borrowed it he forgot, perhaps because he was 'smoked' and it didn't register. If you go back to the last entry you'll see that's when he finally comes to the conclusion Amanda couldn't have been involved, and what he thinks is a perfectly reasonable answer to how that DNA got on the knife is what finally causes him to write:



It's about Amanda and to satisfy his own worries in his own diary that there's no reason for him to think anyone else can see. If he thought the cops would seize it he probably wouldn't have talked about them so badly, nor included that bit about how he was scoping out the (police) babes in prison despite the fact he's fully self aware how that might look being in jail accused of rape-murder! :D


He didn't lie to anyone, he thought he came up with a reasonable explanation that satisfied him how that DNA got there and that Amanda hadn't snuck out of the house when he was sleeping to kill Meredith, just after his lawyer had told him that Amanda might have borrowed the knife anyway. Probably made sense at the time, but it turned out that knife never left his apartment.



Noted, the pro-guilt claim is that Meredith never went to Raf's apartment. Is there any evidence this is true or false?

The reversal of the polarity makes it confusing, I know what you mean! Go through it three times slowly, it is hard evidence and it should convince you. Look at it this way, you know that Amanda and Raffaele were calling all over getting advice on what to do about the murder, they called Amanda's Mom, Filomena, Meredith and Vanessa, the latter of whom told them to call the carabinieri. When the postal police arrive Amanda and Raffaele insist they come in anyway despite the fact they are there just to return the phones.

So why on earth would Raffaele have lied about having called the caribinieri a few minutes before or after the postal police got there? They've already raised the alarm, they greet the postal police and insist they come in, just how stupid is the idea that for some reason he decides not to take his sister's advice until after the postal police get there, whom they greet and take inside. If they're guilty of something why would they want more police at the scene? Why lie about any of this? This is a relic of from before there was evidence of all the people both of them had called and the idea they were trying to delay the discovery of the scene became conclusively discredited.

I didn't realize anyone (outside Mignini) was demented enough to still push that contention, it sounds like that thread is stuck in 2008!


yeah, my head hurts on this one because I've read lengthy arguments that the clock was ten minutes fast and that some expert testified he tested the clock on the camera and confirmed this and it was apparently presented at trial (sorry I don't have the source for this). The pro innocence reply in that thread was that the expert made a mistake but I find it hard to believe that someone tasked with such a simple exercise would make such a basic mistake.

I'm not taking sides on this one, I'm merely saying I am confused by all the noise and can't tell what the truth was in this regard

Why would you expect that there'd be much information of that nature about anyone else not on trial?


Perhaps I am naive, but I would think an independent, non biased third party in charge of taking samples would do so and simply report what was found and not leave off parties that are not on trial. I would think DNA of all flatmates should be found and listed much like four male DNA samples were found on the bra strap. I don't know how important it is that we know who the other three males were but its relevant in my opinion to know that it wasn't only Raf's DNA as the multiple DNA found seems to lend credence to the argument that contamination could have occurred on the bra strap. In the same way, finding DNA from Filomena, etc along with Amanda's would go a long way towards making the argument that Amanda's DNA that was found mixed with Meredeths blood was simply the result of all of these people living together.



I never heard that one! Which picture do you mean regarding the heel impression?


I admit I may be merely seeing things in the photo in the same way people can see faces in the clouds and if I was at the crime scene and had better photos, I might not see what I think I see. The fact that no prosecutor pointed out what I think I see makes me think I'm probably seeing the texture of the tile look like the heel. Here's the photo I am getting this impression from:


mattfoot.jpg
 
no reference samples or substrate controls

Thanks for the response & link, I'll try to read and digest when I find the time.

Did they find DNA of the other flatmates? Seems odd they would only find Amanda's
Amanda and Meredith shared one bathroom; Laura and Filomena shared the other one. The other major problem with the mixed DNA in the bathroom are the collection techniques. For example, the forensic police took one of the blood traces all the way down to the drain plug. Even Colonel Garofano, one of the most pro-prosecution forensic commentators, voiced concern over that. The police did not take reference DNA samples from L or F, nor did they take reference footprints from them. IIRC there are a few extra alleles from one of the samples in Filomena's bedroom; F might or might not be the donor. Finally, if the prosecution had wanted to make a better case for the DNA from luminol-positive blobs in F's room being significant, they should have taken substrate controls.
 
Last edited:
Look I put out this scenario as an a possibility as Rudi claimed he had an arrangement with her. In that scenario he too thought or worried she had told her friends. It seems that Meredith wasn't a chatty Cathy and from what we know of her I can easily imagine that she wouldn't tell her friends as this meeting would be kept between the two of them.

The scenario is basically that Rudi went to meet her. Both of them would want to keep it on the QT but after she rejected him or something else went wrong and the violence occurred he worried that your speculation that she might have told her friends entered his mind.

He then thought he needed cover and decided to stage a burglary and used his timed tested MO. The fact that the high window and large rock were chosen points more to Rudi than the kids. What a bummer of a coincidence for Rudi that the kids used his exact MO.

Why wouldn't the kids just leave the balcony door unlocked. I think it highly unlikely that they would think to stage a break-in. If they did, why wouldn't they do it where the cottage had been broken in several times?

Personally, I think Rudi broke the window with the rock from the outside. i don't believe in her rush to leave Filomena did close the shutters. Remember she had Raf and Amanda wrap her gift. He waited nearby and Meredith came home and he entered through the front door.

If Filomena's window is not a possible entry point, why are there bars on the window now?

I'm already in the camp of believing entering through this window is possible and I think the pictures I've seen show that the window had to broken from the outside (whether one believes it was staged or not) because if the window was broken from the inside, it would have had to be opened into the room toward the cabinet/wardrobe and when the rock was thrown through the opened window (with the interior shutter closed) it would have strewn glass toward that cabinet and not out into the room like the photos I saw show. Plus the rock would more likely be toward that cabinet vs where it was found (of course if it was staged, the rock could have been moved)

While I get your point about the bars now on the window, as a landlord, I can understand why the owner would use an abundance of caution, given a murder occurred in a house he/she needs/wants to rent ,and would put bars on all the windows to remove as many concerns as possible for prospective tenants.
 
Last edited:
It's a silly point.

First, although tension or apprehension can slow digestion, it's far from an invariable occurrence. Fear and terror are more likely to cause hyper-motility of the digestive tract - vomiting and diarrhoea. As I said, I have extensive experience with animals caught live in traps and struggling to get free, and intestinal stasis is not a feature.

Second, the results of Meredith's post mortem show an entirely normal state of digestion for a meal eaten relatively recently, complete with recognisable fragments of what was known to have been eaten. This isn't food that has been held in the acid stomach environment for an abnormally long time.

Third, that idea, even if it were true, requires someone to have been torturing Meredith from shortly after 9 pm, when she returned home. Who was this person? Why are there no signs of prolonged restraint on Meredith's body? Where do Knox and Sollecito fit into this imaginative scenario?

Fourth, bear in mind the people in the parked car. Are we really supposed to believe that someone was torturing a girl in that cottage starting from before they got there, and she was alive and being tortured all that time, and yet they noticed nothing?

All this speculation for no reason at all other than to continue to twist the evidence to try to implicate Knox and Sollecito, even though the straightforward facts show Meredith was dead before 9.30.

Weird.

Rolfe.

It's my understanding that one of the first things that needs to be done at a crime scene is to take the temperature of the body and not having the temperature makes the range of TOD wider, is this correct?

Was a good explanation ever given as to why the temperature was never taken of Meredith's body?
 
Forgot about this part. Yeah, she is a victim, this was a witch hunt. They smeared her to the high heavens and everyone piled on. It happens, it's not the nicest facet of humanity.

She's just a college girl, there's thousands not unlike her crawling around my hometown. Take some tofu to a tie-dye down on State street and you'll have a dozen sniffing after it within the hour. Annoying sometimes, but harmless--and not capable of fooling a dozen cops in the middle of the night when they have all the power and she can barely speak the language.

exactly, she's just a college girl but you act like the entire Italian justice system was out to get her for reasons other than she was the roommate the murdered victim, the murder took place in her house that she had a key to, she had no alibi, and her story didn't add up.
 
Amanda and Meredith shared one bathroom; Laura and Filomena shared the other one. The other major problem with the mixed DNA in the bathroom are the collection techniques. For example, the forensic police took one of the blood traces all the way down to the drain plug. Even Colonel Garofano, one of the most pro-prosecution forensic commentators, voiced concern over that. The police did not take reference DNA samples from L or F, nor did they take reference footprints from them. IIRC there are a few extra alleles from one of the samples in Filomena's bedroom; F might or might not be the donor. Finally, if the prosecution had wanted to make a better case for the DNA from luminol-positive blobs in F's room being significant, they should have taken substrate controls.

Am I wrong to think that a forensics examiner should merely test what they have and report the findings even if they don't have Filomena and Laura's DNA to compare to? It would seem if they found Amanda's DNA and other unknown DNA is also found, it would be reported.

Example:

DNA of AK found in sample 1
Unknown DNA #1 also found in sample 1
Unknown DNA #2 also found in sample 1

Then could the defense get samples from Filomena and Laura and have the unknown DNA compared in order to make the point that all the flat mates had DNA mixed with Meredith's blood?

Didn't they find AK's DNA in Filomena's room? You would think they would find Filomena's as well.

In regard to finding AK's DNA in Filomena's room, IIRC, didn't Knox say she walked into Filomena's room the next morning after taking a shower? If so, it struck me that she could have been barefoot & stepped on some of the tiny broken glass while also stepping in some of Meredith's blood tracked by Rudy's exit and innocently left a mixed profile.

Like I said, its been a while since I've followed and read the details of this case, so I could be way off here
 
it seems to me that people on here concluded from the start that Knox is innocent, and now are just trying to force the facts of the case, no matter how illogical it is to do this, to fit the conclusion she's innocent.

it's easily established to open minded people that the lone wolf theory doesn't hold up, and that Rudy never came in through that window both due the non-existent evidence he did and the sheer illogicality of accessing the cottage thru that window.
 
Sure, I don't believe Amanda or Raff killed or wanted to kill anyone that night or any night, however, they are not telling the truth, they did not stay home, Toto the hobo did see them ,Amanda did most likely let Rudi into the house before she ran away, leaving the front door open, lied about any involvement and basically took a bad situation and made it a lot worse. Amanda locked Meredith's door, staged the break in and lied thru her teeth the rest of the way.

Interesting take, I thought maybe you were going to say the actions of LE & the forensics examiners & witnesses involved were sketchy enough as to bring doubt upon the veracity of the evidence so that while you couldn't stand on a table and scream to the high heavens that there was no way in hell these two kids are guilty, you would have to conclude reasonable doubt and let them walk.

Right or wrong, that's kind of where I'm at.. I admit to being sympathetic to the notion that its better to let a guilty person go free than put one innocent person in jail as that is supposedly the philosophy of the system I live with.
 
While I get your point about the bars now on the window, as a landlord, I can understand why the owner would use an abundance of caution, given a murder occurred in a house he/she needs/wants to rent ,and would put bars on all the windows to remove as many concerns as possible for prospective tenants.

It was given more as an example of PGP thinking. If there are bars there now, that must mean people think entry is possible.

Interesting that naming Patrick and putting herself at the murder scene is not the same as naming Rudi and putting herself at the murder scene.

The fact that she is not brilliant or that she is in fact dumb just adds to the argument that the police were able to manipulate her.

No PGP will ever answer the question as why the police chief said that they questioned her until she buckled and told them what they knew to be correct.

There was no defense when the ICSI went through the cottage so there is no way they could delay the recovery of the bra clasp which was videoed during the first two days of collection. Somehow a piece of clothing that was torn or cut off was left behind even though seen those first two days...hmmmm.

If the police version is to be believed, the bra clasp was left behind in a pile of debris. It is not true that the only DNA of Raf's was on the cigarette butt. That was the only place the ICSI found it, but they didn't go through Amanda's room where his DNA would most likely be found. If they found his DNA on the other part of the bra or anywhere else in the murder room, the bra clasp DNA would have much more weight. But, alas, that's not the case.

The defense is criticized for being attentive about the late collection. They are also criticized for not going to Rome and watching Stefanoni.
 
Mignini sues again

Candace Dempsey wrote, "Amanda Knox’s litigious prosecutor Giuliano Mignini plans to sue over her hot-selling prison memoir, Waiting to be Heard, even though he hasn’t read it." Ms. Dempsey also provides a translation of an article from Oggi, the article upon which Mr. Mignini based his suit, apparently.
 
it seems to me that people on here concluded from the start that Knox is innocent, and now are just trying to force the facts of the case, no matter how illogical it is to do this, to fit the conclusion she's innocent.

it's easily established to open minded people that the lone wolf theory doesn't hold up, and that Rudy never came in through that window both due the non-existent evidence he did and the sheer illogicality of accessing the cottage thru that window.

Your impression is wrong in my opinion. I think most people here formed an opinion of guilt and that changed as they looked at the evidence. Even if the lone wolf theory were wrong (I don't believe it is) that wouldn't constitute evidence against Knox or Sollecito.

Any luck with the many important points on which you have been shown to be wrong? Like the time of her arrival home? I don't mean to laugh but it's not surprising you reject an early TOD when you still have her some way from home when a proper view of the evidence shows she was already dead. And I'm sorry to be a superior Brit but if you take that chip off your shoulder, whatever you do, don't bet it on the lamp.
 
it seems to me that people on here concluded from the start that Knox is innocent, and now are just trying to force the facts of the case, no matter how illogical it is to do this, to fit the conclusion she's innocent.

it's easily established to open minded people that the lone wolf theory doesn't hold up, and that Rudy never came in through that window both due the non-existent evidence he did and the sheer illogicality of accessing the cottage thru that window.

Simply repeating points does not prove them. There is no forensic evidence at all that Knox was in the murder room. That alone should exonerate her from suspicion. In fact that is an example of letting the evidence do the leading... which even Mr. Mignini himself had to concede when he later opined that perhaps she was orchestrating things out in the hall.

I don't see how a lack of evidence "forces the facts" that she is innocent.

Oh yes, the lamp. Dr. Tesla, you need to address how one distinguishes their own DNA from other people's DNA (eg. Rudy's) using a desk lamp. So far you've not addressed that. So I guess I see what you mean by forcing the facts to fit one's conclusion.

Until you address the lamp - not how it got there, but how it can be used as a forensic tool - then you're way off base.
 
I'd hate to be in the position where I was asserting that Knox is a bright woman. she's real dumb. read that written declaration again. if that doesn't make you laugh at its shear stupidity, something is wrong.

she comes across as a little girl who is trying to sucker her dumb daddy is letting her off the hook.[sic]

Where's that exploding irony meter? Ah yes,

:id:
 
Anglo,

Please help me understand Dr. T's position on the break-in. Does he think the window is so high that Rudi could climb through? Does he think that Rudi should have gone through the balcony door? I just can't figure out his position because he doesn't state it clearly.

If it was and is impossible to climb that wall and get in that window why would the owner have put bars on it? if the balcony was used for multiple break-ins, why didn't the landlord make that point of entry secure with a barred outer door?

Also, is it the case that if Rudi picked the wrong window that makes someone else guilty?

Has Thoughtful done the math on the odds that the kids would use the same MO as Rudi?

ETA - What prints were found on the lamp? Naturally one would expect Amanda's but just curious.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom