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

[Kaosium]

But from people who don't have theintellectual honesty even to acknowledge that Knox's lack of urgency before Meredith's locked door is a point of inconsistency in her account, I do not really expect anything in terms of acknowledging reality.

This is what Amanda said in her e-mail regarding what she was doing when Meredith's door was opened:

"and then filomena arrived with her boyfriend marco-f
and two other friends of hers. all together we checked the houe out,
talked to the polie,a nd in a big they all opened merediths door.
i was in the kitchen stadning aside, having really done my part for
the situation."​

Before that she describes what she meant by "having really done my part," she (and Raffaele) were the ones who'd raised the alarm and created any "sense of urgency" to begin with:

"then i knocked on merediths room.
at first i thought she was alseep so i knocked gently, but when she didnt
respond i knocked louder and louder until i was really banging
on her door and shouting her name. no response. panicing, i ran out
onto our terrace to see if maybe i could see over the ledge into her
room from the window, but i couldnt see in. bad angle. i then went
into the bathroom where i had dried my hair and looked really quickley
into the toilet. in my panic i thought i hadnt seen anything there,
which to me meant whoever was in my house had been there when i had
been there. as it turns out the police told me later that the toilet
was full and that the **** had just fallen to the bottom of the
toilet, so i didnt see it. i ran outside and down to our neighbors
door. the lights were out but i banged ont he door anyway. i wanted to
ask them if they had heard anything the night before, but no one was
home. i ran back into the house. in the living room raffael told me he
wanted to see if he could break down merediths door. he tried, and
cracked the door, but we couldnt open it.

it was then that we decided
to call the cops. there are two types of cops in italy, carbanieri
(local, dealing with traffic and domestic calls) and the police
investigaters. he first called his sister for advice and then called
the carbanieri. i then called filomna who said she would be on her way
home immediately. while we were waiting, two ununiformed police
investigaters came to our house. i showed them what i could and told
them what i knew. gave them ohone numbers and explained a bit in
broken italian,"​

Perhaps the problem here is not anyone else displaying 'intellectual dishonesty' but perhaps reading comprehension difficulties on the part of the ones that think so? Or maybe they think freak mode is the only possible setting for a situation like this and it must be maintained at all times?

Who cares? I cannot believe I allowed myself to get dragged into the 'what Amanda said about Meredith's door' argument. You ought to win some points for that at least!

 

[acbytesla]

The balcony would have not been highly visible. Watch the video.

As I said earlier this is a trap. It doesn't matter whether Rudy picked the best entry point or not. It's okay to say that the balcony would be a better break-in point. It doesn't mean that it was staged.

The rock climbing enthusiast after practicing was able to easily get up to the window with the shutters open. I think it is quite reasonable to look at that window and say it isn't the easiest entry point. So what?

It may not have been the "easiest" but it certainly wasn't a hard entry point. The grate on the window below made it very easy for an athletic young man who spends his days playing basketball. The rock climbing guy didn't practice, he just looked at it climbed it. In seconds.

I don't know about you Grinder, But I spent my childhood and teenage years climbing stuff. From trees to third story windows. If I could reach it, I could pull myself up and through it. And I was nothing compared to my older brother Bobby. He could scale just about anything. Rudy's body type is perfect for climbing. Strong, thin athletic. Climbing through that window would be a piece of cake.

Seriously, the difference is between 6 of one and half a dozen of another. The balcony window would have been easy too. But they would both be easy for someone like Rudy.

Walk in the park. I'd bet after he broke that window, Rudy climbed up and through it in under 30 seconds.

 

[Antony]

This part I grudgingly agree with you. But for me the issue really isn't which break-in point was easier, per se. The issue is as both Channel 5 proved and as even Massei heavily suggested, you can rule out Filomena's window as a reasonable and readily doable break-in point, regardless of even if the front door was wide open!

You're right, it is a bit of a waste to even argue it. Esp. when photographic evidence clearly shows the relative exposure of the balcony... but then again, here I am arguing it, and it doesn't really need it.

Yes and no. Grinder is probably right to say that spending time trying to prove the prosecution wrong about the break-in and the alleged multiple attackers might even be damaging to the defence case, but that doesn't mean they're not worthwhile subjects for discussion here.

 

[Grinder]

This part I grudgingly agree with you. But for me the issue really isn't which break-in point was easier, per se. The issue is as both Channel 5 proved and as even Massei heavily suggested, you can rule out Filomena's window as a reasonable and readily doable break-in point, regardless of even if the front door was wide open!

You're right, it is a bit of a waste to even argue it. Esp. when photographic evidence clearly shows the relative exposure of the balcony... but then again, here I am arguing it, and it doesn't really need it.

The balcony would be better or just as good an entry point. Your picture was taken from a higher point than the road and further back. At night driving on that road few would look down and to the right to see the balcony and there was not bright light on it. Where is the picture at night from a car showing the balcony?

Part of the climb would be shielded by the corner of the building and once on the balcony it doesn't even look suspicious. Someone out having a smoke.

The balcony would be a better break-in sight, so what? It is a suckers play to argue that F's was the most likely. It doesn't matter.

A better issue is that if the kids went to the trouble and thought to stage how in the hell could they neglect to work out an alibi?

 

[acbytesla]

Bingo. The PIP keep fighting these battles that don't matter. There is no evidence that Amanda and Raf staged. What a strange coincidence that they used his MO to stage.

aaaaahhhh...but you know why that is so Grinder? Mach is dictating the argument by his claims.

His blanket statement that burglars always use the easiest point of entry and then just how much easier and unexposed the balcony was compared to Filomena's window. So we spend all are time slapping down Mach's arguments. Most of which are silly and aren't anything but wild speculation.

 

[Grinder]

Yes and no. Grinder is probably right to say that spending time trying to prove the prosecution wrong about the break-in and the alleged multiple attackers might even be damaging to the defence case, but that doesn't mean they're not worthwhile subjects for discussion here.

Wait a minute! Are you saying that the case isn't going to be decided here by us?

 

[Kaosium]

While I respect your opinion, I still think that Mignini himself does not currently appear to have committed misconduct to a criminal standard in the Kercher case.

I think that Mignini knows full well how to work just within the letter of the law (even if well outside the spirit and ethics of the law), and that this is what he has likely done in this case. Perhaps the most appropriate example of this is the 5.35am "notarisation" of Knox's second statement. While I would argue (and have argued) that the context and available evidence makes it pretty clear that Mignini was riding roughshod over the code in his actions, it still falls far short of meeting a criminal standard of misconduct in public office. Regrettably.

I think that Mignini was very clever and artful in his use of the police as a "plausible deniability" fashion. I do think that various senior police officers DID commit prima facie criminal misconduct, but I think that Mignini can successfully immunise himself from their actions. I think that Comodi might have a case to answer around the Stefanoni disclosure issues, and that Stefanoni herself very probably has a case to answer as well. But Mignini? Currently no, in my opinion.

However, if solid new evidence were to emerge (say,for example, tapes of the activities in the police HQ that night, or evidence of a close professional associate), my view on Mignini's potential criminal liability might change......

Fair enough, he is a master of the game and perhaps it is more the problem with a system that allows specious charges like those filed against all those reporters and family and doesn't acknowledge the corrupting potential of being able to wiretap and start 'investigations' on those who don't fall into line or dare disagree.

I do think there's more reason to start an investigation against him than any of the extranneous charges he filed against others in this case. The first thing I would look for is whether Patrick's phones were ever tapped and his prison conversations recorded. How are they going to get evidence of the nature required without ever starting an investigation?

 

[Strozzi]

The important point is this: any analysis of which window a real break-in perpetrator "should" have chosen is moot and irrelevant. The ONLY important thing is whether or not it was feasible and physically possible for someone to have broken in through Filomena's window in a way which is compatible with the known evidence. And the answer to that is a resounding "yes".

Why wouldn't/couldn't a break-in perp have, for example, chosen to throw a grappling iron up at the back of the cottage and enter via Meredith's window? Why wouldn't/couldn't a break-in perp have chosen to saw laboriously through the bars on one of the downstairs windows and break into the lower apartment? Why wouldn't/couldn't a break-in perp have kicked in the front door of the girls' cottage and broken in that way?

It's intellectually bankrupt to attempt to argue that the break-in "must" have been staged on the basis that "it's not the most obvious point of ingress for a break-in perp". Of course, in this instance it's also additional evidence of a nasty confirmation bias.

And of course the other point (which is just as illogical but just as valid to an idiot trying to make the "wrong point of entry" argument) is this: why would Knox and Sollecito - if guilty and performing a staging of a break-in - not have chosen the most "obvious" point of ingress for their staging?

We can argue til the cows come home over whether Filomena's window or the balcony might have been a "better" way in for a break-in perp*. But that argument is totally irrelevant. The fact is this: it was possible for a person to break in via Filomena's window, and all the evidence is compatible with a real break-in via this route.


* And in fact I'd argue that there are significant advantages to a perp of using Filomena's window vs the balcony. They main advantage is the relative ease of escape, plus the ability to close the exterior shutters in Qfront of the broken window once inside the property (thus hiding the evidence of a break-in from passers-by).

The point which the burglar selected for entry is not what any of us or the PLE think is the most convenient or logical or easy or practical or obscur or common. It is what the burglar thought worked best for him when he was standing at a certain location outside the house and decided to commence his action. He is not required to do a survey of the many sides of the building, or check lumens or foliage, or count and evaluate possible escape routes, etc. Rudy made his decision for whatever reasons he was satisfied with and he proceeded.

We know of it because of the rock he used, impact damage to shutter, glass fragment dispersal, dirt dust pattern on the floor that he left from his shoe when he stepped inside, et al.

If the police had done a more thorough investigation (including photos and sample collection/analysis) we would know even more. The reason the police did not do a more thorough examination of physical evidence of the break-in is that their on-scene leadership assumed it had to be something else.

 

[Grinder]

It may not have been the "easiest" but it certainly wasn't a hard entry point. The grate on the window below made it very easy for an athletic young man who spends his days playing basketball. The rock climbing guy didn't practice, he just looked at it climbed it. In seconds.

Tesla, Tesla, Tesla - poor naive Tesla. Of course they filmed it as if he just went and climbed it but you can bank that they made the climb off camera more than once.

You actually think the camera guy just set up and waited for them to appear and shot it in one take?

When one does an interview with TV they do a set-up where one walks and talks to the interviewer. In this case the two lawyers weren't really just ambling to the cottage when they ran into the the camera guy.

I don't know about you Grinder, But I spent my childhood and teenage years climbing stuff. From trees to third story windows. If I could reach it, I could pull myself up and through it. And I was nothing compared to my older brother Bobby. He could scale just about anything. Rudy's body type is perfect for climbing. Strong, thin athletic. Climbing through that window would be a piece of cake.

I was a star climber and most always picked the easiest way up, especially when doing a B&E.

Seriously, the difference is between 6 of one and half a dozen of another. The balcony window would have been easy too. But they would both be easy for someone like Rudy.

Walk in the park. I'd bet after he broke that window, Rudy climbed up and through it in under 30 seconds.

Whatever.

 

[acbytesla]

Tesla, Tesla, Tesla - poor naive Tesla. Of course they filmed it as if he just went and climbed it but you can bank that they made the climb off camera more than once.

You actually think the camera guy just set up and waited for them to appear and shot it in one take?

When one does an interview with TV they do a set-up where one walks and talks to the interviewer. In this case the two lawyers weren't really just ambling to the cottage when they ran into the the camera guy.



I was a star climber and most always picked the easiest way up, especially when doing a B&E.



Whatever.

Yea... I know nothing about movie magic. While I agree that movies and tv often take license, I don't think there is is anything so challenging about that climb that would require practice. I bet the rock climber took one look at it and thought.."piece of cake". But I have no idea. But I would think they wanted a real evaluation. So they set up the camera and said "climb". We'll never know for sure if they did this or let him practice.

At 16 I use to climb through second story windows way too often. Usually because someone got locked out. But you have to understand, I had 4 brothers, 3 of which were within a couple of years of age as me. We didn't commit burglaries, but we climbed everything, played ball all the time. This was before kids had video games. It's what we did. You're close to my age...didn't you do this kind of thing??

 

[katy_did]

Why is it required that a rock be thrown? Could a burglar just jimmy the door or break the glass with a hammer?

If he happened to have a crowbar or a hammer on his person, sure. If not, then maybe the simplicity of heaving a rock through a rickety window with a broken shutter was just more inviting to Rudy than the uncertainty of entering via a balcony with double-glazed and possibly shuttered windows, and no obvious means of breaking them.

Generally, I agree that even if the balcony were more likely, it would mean nothing; it isn't so obviously more likely as to make an entry via Filomena's window unbelievable.

BTW I think you said earlier that the residents thought the window was too high to access, but this isn't quite true, at least not in Filomena's case. She says in her testimony she contacted the landlord about her window because it was in such bad condition and had no bars on it, so she didn't feel secure. IIRC she says even the window frame itself didn't latch securely.

 

[Dan O.]

The balcony would be better or just as good an entry point. Your picture was taken from a higher point than the road and further back. At night driving on that road few would look down and to the right to see the balcony and there was not bright light on it. Where is the picture at night from a car showing the balcony?

Part of the climb would be shielded by the corner of the building and once on the balcony it doesn't even look suspicious. Someone out having a smoke.

The balcony would be a better break-in sight, so what? It is a suckers play to argue that F's was the most likely. It doesn't matter.

A better issue is that if the kids went to the trouble and thought to stage how in the hell could they neglect to work out an alibi?

Imagine your self lying in bed fiddling with the buttons on your cell phone (or do you still have a princess phone on the bed stand) and suddenly you hear the sound of glass breaking. So you jump out of bed and open your door and there through the double glass doors to the patio you see Guede.

Now imagine you are Guede standing on the porch having just smashed a window with the little hamer you carry. Suddenly a bedroom door swings open spilling light through the double patio doors and onto your face. In shock you see the occupant dialing 112 on the phone in their hand.

How stupid can one person be? It was only a couple of months ago that you snuck into an appartment that turned out to be occupied. You got away that time because even if they went to the police (which they did) they didn't know you. But this is different. You met two of the girls just last week while visiting your friends downstairs.

So put your brain back in your head. Stop looking at how easy it would be to break in from the porch and figure out what you are going to do insure that nobody is home. Hey, there is a low window on the other side of the house with the shutters open and no bars. You could put a large rock through that window and then hide in the shadows to see if anyone responds. Hey, it worked two weeks ago with that lawyers office. Stupid getting caught with the goods in Milan. Better stick to easily converted items like cash.

 

[Grinder]

If he happened to have a crowbar or a hammer on his person, sure. If not, then maybe the simplicity of heaving a rock through a rickety window with a broken shutter was just more inviting to Rudy than the uncertainty of entering via a balcony with double-glazed and possibly shuttered windows, and no obvious means of breaking them.

No shutters on the balcony door and Rudy was known to carry a little hammer.

Generally, I agree that even if the balcony were more likely, it would mean nothing; it isn't so obviously more likely as to make an entry via Filomena's window unbelievable.

BTW I think you said earlier that the residents thought the window was too high to access, but this isn't quite true, at least not in Filomena's case. She says in her testimony she contacted the landlord about her window because it was in such bad condition and had no bars on it, so she didn't feel secure. IIRC she says even the window frame itself didn't latch securely.

Don't remember that testimony, but it is clear that for the life of that place it didn't have bars on that window while having them on many others.

She was running out without time to wrap a gift so I think it quite likely she didn't shut her shutters. But in Italy if someone say they did, they did, no questions asked.

 

[NancyS]

I could say the same about you.
You think LJ proved 'something' with 'his' photos!

You know, there is no articulation in you thought someone could argue with. Your lack of argumentation just speaks by itself.

Reall, I do consider that the real balcony is the logical point of entry as something self-evident. That it is not exposed, far from view, not illuminated, not suspicious, the best way in.
That was self evident to the Massei court.

But from people who don't have theintellectual honesty even to acknowledge that Knox's lack of urgency before Meredith's locked door is a point of inconsistency in her account, I do not really expect anything in terms of acknowledging reality.
You will always find a photos from which you can 'see' the balcony and you will claim that this is 'proof' of something. But this 'argument' is idiotic and will remain such.

Where is the evidence that burglars use the most logical point of entry? There are many stories of burglars doing the most illogical and ridiculous things. Maybe Guede was just a really rubbish burglar - maybe his good buddy Migini will teach him how to do a better job when he gets out next year

 

[Grinder]

Imagine your self lying in bed fiddling with the buttons on your cell phone (or do you still have a princess phone on the bed stand) and suddenly you hear the sound of glass breaking. So you jump out of bed and open your door and there through the double glass doors to the patio you see Guede.

Oh how cute kitty humor. Maybe you haven't entered the modern era but surely she was listening to tunes and was wearing a headset. Guede would already be in and of course the PIP have him inside before she returns. You haven't been following this case have you.

Now imagine you are Guede standing on the porch having just smashed a window with the little hamer you carry. Suddenly a bedroom door swings open spilling light through the double patio doors and onto your face. In shock you see the occupant dialing 112 on the phone in their hand.

You so don't know this case. He was sitting on the toilet when she returned. Get with it.

How stupid can one person be? It was only a couple of months ago that you snuck into an appartment that turned out to be occupied. You got away that time because even if they went to the police (which they did) they didn't know you. But this is different. You met two of the girls just last week while visiting your friends downstairs.

So put your brain back in your head. Stop looking at how easy it would be to break in from the porch and figure out what you are going to do insure that nobody is home. Hey, there is a low window on the other side of the house with the shutters open and no bars. You could put a large rock through that window and then hide in the shadows to see if anyone responds. Hey, it worked two weeks ago with that lawyers office. Stupid getting caught with the goods in Milan. Better stick to easily converted items like cash.

Wow or you could knock on the door because you are known by them and could ask about where the boys are or some excuse.

The lawyers' office was accessed from a balcony.

 

[moodstream]

The one thing that is missing from Machavelli's assertions is proof.


It is amazing to me the number of times one needs to argue against the evidence to maintain something.

The fact is, the balcony is the least likely point of entry for all the reasons listed.

This whole issue is a mini-version of how evidence is handled by each side. So it is some neutral observer can make up their own mind, really.

This is such a non-issue. One has to argue against the evidence to claim otherwise.

The balcony is irrelevant. The relevant question is, was the break in staged, and the subquestion is, was the broken window used a a point of entry, to which one factor to consider is, how likely is it that this window was used. The height the of window from ground is a relevant consideration, but the information about another windows accessibility is not. The visibility of the broken window from the street is relevant, the visibility of some other window is not.


I agree. It is a very worrisome argument that Machavell makes. He would have us believe that in Italy, the prosecution dream ups as many insinuating scenarios as possible, each individual baseless insinuation gets labeled a piece of evidence. At a certain aggregate number of these insuations, a critical mass is reached, the it then appears to the Italians that the defendant must be guilty.

That is the craziest she-8 I have ever heard, and I fear for Italy if true.

 

[katy_did]

No shutters on the balcony door and Rudy was known to carry a little hammer.

One would hope the cops confiscated his last one, but who knows. He did use a rock and not a hammer during the break-in at the lawyer's office. Plus, if he didn't visit the cottage that night intending to break in, he may not have have brought his burglar tools with him.

Let's say if he had his window-breaking hammer, that's a point in favour of the balcony; if he didn't, that makes Filomena's window a bit more likely.

I think Dan O is right about the problem of getting caught on the balcony: sure, you could knock on the door, but there's no guarantee someone isn't inside sleeping off the Halloween celebrations and can't be bothered to answer. Not to mention the possibility one of the guys might come home and see him on the balcony as they walked in the front door.

Don't remember that testimony, but it is clear that for the life of that place it didn't have bars on that window while having them on many others.

She was running out without time to wrap a gift so I think it quite likely she didn't shut her shutters. But in Italy if someone say they did, they did, no questions asked.

Sure. She does make a point of saying the state of her window left her feeling unsafe, but that probably wouldn't have been upper-most in her mind when she was in such a rush.

 

[acbytesla]

No shutters on the balcony door and Rudy was known to carry a little hammer.



Don't remember that testimony, but it is clear that for the life of that place it didn't have bars on that window while having them on many others.

She was running out without time to wrap a gift so I think it quite likely she didn't shut her shutters. But in Italy if someone say they did, they did, no questions asked.

These are dumb arguments Grinder. Maybe to one burglar the balcony would be better, but to another, Filomena's window was fine. Since none of us (I'm talking liberties here) are burglars, how the hell would we know? I watched a Dateline show where a burglar showed all the ways he use to break into a house. But that guy was an expert. He would break into a house and be out of the house in a couple of minutes and gone. He said he robbed hundreds of homes before he was ever caught.

I really have no idea whether the balcony was harder or easier, I do however believe that Filomena's window was not hard. Well it would be impossible for me today, but I think it would have been super easy for me at 16. And I was an average high school athlete. Lettered in soccer and football, but certainly wasn't a star. Rudy played semipro basketball. My guess he would make that climb easier than I would, and I think it would have been easy.

 

[Kaosium]

I was a star climber and most always picked the easiest way up, especially when doing a B&E.

No, you weren't, this is apparent from the fact you're still arguing that assent was difficult. I do understand how just looking at some of the pictures it looks difficult, but that's deceiving, it's much easier than it looks due to the bars on the window below. Here is the evidence of that, first the picture of the lawyer getting up there:

​

Here's the video for those who haven't seen it.

I gather you were being facetious, but the reason people like Tesla and myself say things like that is we can look at that window ascent and realize it's not as difficult as it may appear to some. Profazio saying it would require some superhuman as per the story I linked a while back is not corroberration of your contention, it's evidence they're incompetent slobs and jumped prematurely to an erroneous conclusion that the break-in must have been staged. That's important to the discussion because it's what caused them to start looking at the ones who had keys after John Kercher publically objected to their theory that Meredith had brought her attacker home. Thus they confined their 'investigation' to residents leading to their suspicion of Amanda.

That's the genesis of why their 'investigation' went so very wrong. Another indication of their rank incompetence is it took them ten days after the murder to check the CCTV camera that pointed at the driveway of the site of the murder they were investigating. I still have difficulty believing that and have theorized off the assumption that no professional police force could possibly be that incompetent, but their contention that window was especially difficult to climb into is just more evidence of that.

 

[acbytesla]

No, you weren't, this is apparent from the fact you're still arguing that assent was difficult. I do understand how just looking at some of the pictures it looks difficult, but that's deceiving, it's much easier than it looks due to the bars on the window below. Here is the evidence of that, first the picture of the lawyer getting up there:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_4396452a22824d0fb5.jpg[/qimg]​

Here's the video for those who haven't seen it.

I gather you were being facetious, but the reason people like Tesla and myself say things like that is we can look at that window ascent and realize it's not as difficult as it may appear to some. Profazio saying it would require some superhuman as per the story I linked a while back is not corroberration of your contention, it's evidence they're incompetent slobs and jumped prematurely to an erroneous conclusion that the break-in must have been staged. That's important to the discussion because it's what caused them to start looking at the ones who had keys after John Kercher publically objected to their theory that Meredith had brought her attacker home. Thus they confined their 'investigation' to residents leading to their suspicion of Amanda.

That's the genesis of why their 'investigation' went so very wrong. Another indication of their rank incompetence is it took them ten days after the murder to check the CCTV camera that pointed at the driveway of the site of the murder they were investigating. I still have difficulty believing that and have theorized off the assumption that no professional police force could possibly be that incompetent, but their contention that window was especially difficult to climb into is just more evidence of that.

Thanks Kaosium. I just watched the video again. The sill is quite large. It really provides a great grab hold, which clearly makes it easy. The guy climbing it went from the ground to sitting on the sill in 10 seconds. 10 SECONDS.