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

[Sherlock Holmes]

Oh didn't you hear? The SC discovered a crack addict that just came forward and has given testimony that he saw Curatolo in the plaza and towels on the gate the night that the disco buses were running.

They have also told the Florentine court that must explain the shoe print of Rudi and the locked door. Apparently you have focused on a key issue, not.

ETA - it is difficult to get facts straight when people use fiction writer's fake quotes and their own fake evidence.

Yes, I read about the quote thing, and yes, you are correct there, now when Mich comes back he won't be able to use the sleep argument, I hope your proud of that.

Oh yes, the footprint I brought up is not a key issue, it was not brought up at trial at all as far I know. My problem is that I'm sure there is a reason it was not because it would be key if not for something like the door is lockable from the inside, therefore no sense in bringing it up. That is a possible explanation, nothing else I've heard so far is, I hardly doubt they overlooked this.

 

[Dan O.]

It makes no difference at all if the door can be locked while open from the inside, and so far, that is the only intelligent answer I have found to that question, and like I said, I have no Idea if Meredith's door is like that.

We know. It's a deadbolt. It can't be locked while open and then closed to engage the bolt.

Now, about those shoe prints, are you going to try to explain them or should we expect another distraction?

 

[Paninaro]

If Hellmann and Zanetti were as bad regarding procedure and logic as the SC paints them out to be, then at least they should be prosecuted for their way to conduct the trial. And the system which put them in their positions in the first place reformed immediately.

Either way it's Italian justice that has messed up the case and they refuse to aknowledge it in any way, shape or form.

This verdict is about safing face. Maybe we should have seen this coming. To admit that Knox and Sollecito are probably innocent or even that there is reasonable doubt is to admit that not only the Perugian local police and prosecutors messed up bigtime but also that the way murder investigations involving techical expertise are carried out in Italy doesn't live up to any sort of standard that can be expected from a well functioning modern democracy.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

We know. It's a deadbolt. It can't be locked while open and then closed to engage the bolt.

Someone on another board told me it could, or at least it may be possible because they have seen locks in Europe like that, I have no idea, I have seen pictures of the lock and I would tend to agree with you on that point, but maybe in Italy, they do things a little differently, I do not know. I do know that I have never seen a front door you had to use a key to lock from the inside and that same door has a door handle in the middle of the door, so who knows about strange working dead bolts in Italy.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

We know. It's a deadbolt. It can't be locked while open and then closed to engage the bolt.

Now, about those shoe prints, are you going to try to explain them or should we expect another distraction?

You added a line while I was replying to the first line, anyway

The shoe prints lead out Meredith's door and do not return even under Lumina examination, Rudi did not lock that door when he left and he didn't return to lock it later, those were his final prints out the door, show me where he returned, you can't. Now, because this was not brought up at trial, I'm guessing there is probably a very good reason why, I would like to know, but no one seem to know the answer.

 

[Dan O.]

The shoe prints lead out Meredith's door and do not return even under Lumina examination, Rudi did not lock that door when he left and he didn't return to lock it later, those were his final prints out the door, show me where he returned, you can't. Now, because this was not brought up at trial, I'm guessing there is probably a very good reason why, I would like to know, but no one seem to know the answer.

I gave you a specific task because you are either ignorant of the evidence or are deliberately trying to misrepresent it. The task for you is to state the sequence of the shoe prints by the letters. By completing this task you will show that you know (or have learned) the facts.

This is an open book exam. You can even scroll back in this thread to where I gave the precise answer.

 

[MDDVS]

You added a line while I was replying to the first line, anyway

The shoe prints lead out Meredith's door and do not return even under Lumina examination, Rudi did not lock that door when he left and he didn't return to lock it later, those were his final prints out the door, show me where he returned, you can't. Now, because this was not brought up at trial, I'm guessing there is probably a very good reason why, I would like to know, but no one seem to know the answer.

Many people have provided reasonable answers, it's just that you don't like those answers.

The position of the foot is completely normal for someone closing the door with the back turned to the door. Also, it's important to consider that the feet of some people have an angle greater then zero between them, i.e. they may point a bit to the "side" when the person is standing.

As I said, I close doors many times with my back to the door, especially when I'm on a rush.

Also, it may well be that he returned later to close the door. It's interesting how people who believe in guilt have to hold to these pieces of very weak circuntancial evidence. But I guess that's what you have to do when you don't have any real evidence.

 

[Bill Williams]

If Hellmann and Zanetti were as bad regarding procedure and logic as the SC paints them out to be, then at least they should be prosecuted for their way to conduct the trial. And the system which put them in their positions in the first place reformed immediately.

Either way it's Italian justice that has messed up the case and they refuse to aknowledge it in any way, shape or form.

This verdict is about safing face. Maybe we should have seen this coming. To admit that Knox and Sollecito are probably innocent or even that there is reasonable doubt is to admit that not only the Perugian local police and prosecutors messed up bigtime but also that the way murder investigations involving techical expertise are carried out in Italy doesn't live up to any sort of standard that can be expected from a well functioning modern democracy.

A likely outcome is to acquit (again) but some strong statement that the PLE was right to suspect the pair. But we will see.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Many people have provided reasonable answers, it's just that you don't like those answers.

The position of the foot is completely normal for someone closing the door with the back turned to the door. Also, it's important to consider that the feet of some people have an angle greater then zero between them, i.e. they may point a bit to the "side" when the person is standing.

As I said, I close doors many times with my back to the door, especially when I'm on a rush.

Also, it may well be that he returned later to close the door. It's interesting how people who believe in guilt have to hold to these pieces of very weak circuntancial evidence. But I guess that's what you have to do when you don't have any real evidence.

Your reply makes little sense, I close doors that way as well, that is not the question here, do you lock those doors that way, especially doors you have never seen before and could not possibly know if you even have the correct key in your hand, she had several you know, the boys downstairs, the front door takes a different key as well. The blood stains, visible to the naked eye, show where he left, they do not return even under Lumina examination. Something here does not make sense because we don't know all the facts, this seems rather important but it wasn't brought up at trial, I'd would like to know the reason but no one seems to know, unless somehow, the door can be locked from the inside and just closed after, that would answer my question, but going for a walk outside until all traces of blood are removed, I find highly unlikely, same goes for the overboard he jumps on once he gets to the front door.

 

[anglolawyer]

A likely outcome is to acquit (again) but some strong statement that the PLE was right to suspect the pair. But we will see.

Ah, yes! More predictions. What was your call on the SC verdict, Williams?

 

[yimyammer]

And even Italian law says that if there are two explanations the court must take the one that points to innocence.

you could have fooled me

 

[MDDVS]

Your reply makes little sense, I close doors that way as well, that is not the question here, do you lock those doors that way, especially doors you have never seen before and could not possibly know if you even have the correct key in your hand, she had several you know, the boys downstairs, the front door takes a different key as well. The blood stains, visible to the naked eye, show where he left, they do not return even under Lumina examination. Something here does not make sense because we don't know all the facts, this seems rather important but it wasn't brought up at trial, I'd would like to know the reason but no one seems to know, unless somehow, the door can be locked from the inside and just closed after, that would answer my question, but going for a walk outside until all traces of blood are removed, I find highly unlikely, same goes for the overboard he jumps on once he gets to the front door.

As you say, we don't know for sure. But considering that it is completely plausible that he just locked the door with the back to the door I don't see what the big fuss about all of this. We don't have to know every little detail of what happened.

To me it just seems that you are arguing from personal incredulity. So what he never closed the door before? As I said, the back to the door is a perfectly normal position when you're in a rush to leave and is not an unconfortable position, you have time to try different keys.

 

[Bill Williams]

Your reply makes little sense, I close doors that way as well, that is not the question here, do you lock those doors that way, especially doors you have never seen before and could not possibly know if you even have the correct key in your hand, she had several you know, the boys downstairs, the front door takes a different key as well. The blood stains, visible to the naked eye, show where he left, they do not return even under Lumina examination. Something here does not make sense because we don't know all the facts, this seems rather important but it wasn't brought up at trial, I'd would like to know the reason but no one seems to know, unless somehow, the door can be locked from the inside and just closed after, that would answer my question, but going for a walk outside until all traces of blood are removed, I find highly unlikely, same goes for the overboard he jumps on once he gets to the front door.

This is where confirmation bias enters into this - apologies for saying it. The problem with saying it is it's an invitation to throw the accusation back! Go for it!

But at the level of evidence, whatever that is worth these days, Rudy himself admits to returning to the room. For all we know he may have locked the door on his first exit, and when unlocking to get back in kept that door key handy so as to lock it again.

So far all this is reminding me of that other case, Nyki Kish, where Justice Nordheimer had to simplify and ignore whole whacks of evidence to come to a simplistic explanation to butress his own c.b.

Apologies. That the wsy I see it. Okay, your turn to have at it.

 

[Bill Williams]

Ah, yes! More predictions. What was your call on the SC verdict, Williams?

I once got calunnia right didn't I, before foolishly reading Mignini and losing that one!

What's your point then? I happen now to have a perfect record for prediction! Instead of criticizing you should be reflecting in awe!

 

[Dan O.]

Someone on another board told me it could, or at least it may be possible because they have seen locks in Europe like that, I have no idea, I have seen pictures of the lock and I would tend to agree with you on that point, but maybe in Italy, they do things a little differently, I do not know. I do know that I have never seen a front door you had to use a key to lock from the inside and that same door has a door handle in the middle of the door, so who knows about strange working dead bolts in Italy.

The latch hardware on the interior doors of the cottage are identified visually as AGB interroom lock sets. [ AGB Patent Piccola ]


The manufacturer's web page has an "ask for info" link. Someone that thinks these locks can be set while the door is open might choose to take advantage of that link.

 

[anglolawyer]

I once got calunnia right didn't I, before foolishly reading Mignini and losing that one!

What's your point then? I happen now to have a perfect record for prediction! Instead of criticizing you should be reflecting in awe!

Are you sure you never said the SC would uphold the acquittals? And IIRC you did not predict calunnia so much as agree with Hellman's verdict. I just think predicting the outcome of legal cases (especially this one) is silly.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

The latch hardware on the interior doors of the cottage are identified visually as AGB interroom lock sets. [ AGB Patent Piccola ]


The manufacturer's web page has an "ask for info" link. Someone that thinks these locks can be set while the door is open might choose to take advantage of that link.

That does look like the lock in question, I filled out their 'Contact Information' and then at the bottom where it says 'Message', it won't let me type in my question, it won't let me type in anything, so it is of no help, but thanks for trying.

 

[Grinder]

It makes no difference at all if the door can be locked while open from the inside, and so far, that is the only intelligent answer I have found to that question, and like I said, I have no Idea if Meredith's door is like that.

Dan O has demonstrated that the visible prints became luminol prints which then just ended. There is no leap needed to have Rudi walk back to the room and go through the purse and then go out the door, turn and lock it.

In keeping with the solemnity of the process so far, each side should only be allowed to call crack addicts to give evidence in Florence.

I believe that will be the case except the defense will be allowed one heroin addict for their alibi.

Yes, I read about the quote thing, and yes, you are correct there, now when Mich comes back he won't be able to use the sleep argument, I hope your proud of that.

Oh yes, the footprint I brought up is not a key issue, it was not brought up at trial at all as far I know. My problem is that I'm sure there is a reason it was not because it would be key if not for something like the door is lockable from the inside, therefore no sense in bringing it up. That is a possible explanation, nothing else I've heard so far is, I hardly doubt they overlooked this.

Just maybe even the Italians can see that Rudi could have returned and most likely did return to the room in order to go through her purse. Damn that DNA on her purse or was it a bloody print.

I like the theory that they murdered Meredith after she screamed and then all three of them ran out of the house but Rudi needed to return to get into that purse or did he immediately stop as the others ran out and riffled the purse? Did A and R clean themselves before returning to the plaza or did they go home directly and leave no traces at Raf's either? Do you believe that Rudi went straight out and never returned and the kids went with him?

We know. It's a deadbolt. It can't be locked while open and then closed to engage the bolt.

Now, about those shoe prints, are you going to try to explain them or should we expect another distraction?

Dan O - thanks for your work. I hope the defense uses some of your work.

 

[Dan O.]

This is where confirmation bias enters into this - apologies for saying it. The problem with saying it is it's an invitation to throw the accusation back! Go for it!

But at the level of evidence, whatever that is worth these days, Rudy himself admits to returning to the room. For all we know he may have locked the door on his first exit, and when unlocking to get back in kept that door key handy so as to lock it again.

Rudy had to open the door the first time he left the room. Note the blood on the inside handle. By the time he returns to lock the door his hands have been cleaned (no blood on the outside handle).

The bloody shoe prints were possibly left on this first exit. I used to think this was the final exit but I confronted the evidence and it tells a different story (Still waiting for Sherlock to confront the evidence so he can talk about what the evidence shows instead of what he wants to believe).

 

[Christian Klippel]

Someone on another board told me it could, or at least it may be possible because they have seen locks in Europe like that, I have no idea, I have seen pictures of the lock and I would tend to agree with you on that point, but maybe in Italy, they do things a little differently, I do not know. I do know that I have never seen a front door you had to use a key to lock from the inside and that same door has a door handle in the middle of the door, so who knows about strange working dead bolts in Italy.

Standard inside-door locks do not allow the door to be locked while open. And so far i never came across one, either in Germany (where i live) or in any EU country i have been so far. What exists are locks that _unlock_ without a key if the manual handle is used from the inside. This is to allow door be fully locked but have them open from the inside without a key in case of an emergency.

That the front door needed to be locked from the inside is simply due to the fact that someone jammed the upper bolt of the lock, as can be very clearly seen in the images of that door. In other words: It is broken. Normally that would not be required.

Front doors usually do not have a manual handle (which works on the upper bolt) on the outside, only on the inside. It simply is a matter of taste,preference, whatever, where one would place a knob/handle on the outside. There are many variations, for example a static knob where the manual handle would normally be, or a big raised plate as handle, or a bar across the door as a handle, or knobs in the middle. It has no significance as to the lock itself, since it won't be connected to it anyways.

Greetings,

Chris