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

[moodstream]

Here is my guess: Guede looked to see if anyone seemed to be home. He walked down and around the house as he ordinarily would if he were on the way to see the boys who lived below. He knocked on their door to see if anyone was home. Finding that they were not, he found a rock and threw it through Filomena's window. He chose Filomena's window because, being on the same side of the house as the door to the boy's flat, he had a ready explanation for why he was down there should he be discovered, right up to, and (if increasingly flimsy) through the point that he tossed the rock. He chose Filomena's over Ms Kercher's because between the two it was the easier entry point. After he threw the rock, he waited below to see if a light went on or there was any reaction coming from the girls flat. Once he was sure no one was home, he climbed through Filomena's window.

Of course I am just speculating, but it seems far more reasonable to me than Mach's pov.

 

[Dan O.]

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.

I'm up on all the modern conveniences. It's my parents that still have a working rotary dial phone (on a Comcast VOIP service no less). I did tell you to imagine, it's a usefull technique of projection to help predict the consequences of ones actions to help avoid making stupid mistakes.

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.

I've tried knocking. It doesn't always work. Some people just won't answer the door when they are home alone at night. But toss a big ole rock through a window works every time. If the police don't show in 15 minutes there is either nobody home or they were knocked out by an unexpected rock flying through the window.

The lawyers' office was accessed from a balcony.

After Milan, Rudy is probably thinking that one of these days he is going to need the services of a lawyer. He returned the equipment stolen from the lawyer and apologized. When Rudy then did need their assistance, one traveled out of the country to meet him personally before the prosecutor got a chance to interview him in his own special way. Contrast this to Amanda and Raffaele being grilled all night and then tossed into solitary and not even seeing their lawyers until they were standing in front of the judge.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

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.

Cranks set the agenda, unfortunately. Fran Keller just got out of prison in Texas. Her husband is set to be released next week. They have been in prison for two decades. During that whole time, lawyers have argued in dead earnest that the Kellers did not fly children to and from Mexico during the hours when they were supposed to be in day care. Nor did they take the kids on field trips to cemeteries, for the purpose of digging up bodies.

What else could they do? If people in positions of authority believe whatever lunacy comes down the pike, rational people have to take it seriously.

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-t...eller-freed-in-satanic-abuse-case-5038352.php

 

[Dan O.]

He chose Filomena's window because, being on the same side of the house as the door to the boy's flat, he had a ready explanation for why he was down there should he be discovered, right up to, and (if increasingly flimsy) through the point that he tossed the rock.

While there is a door on the same side of the building as Filomena's window, it is the back door to the boy's apartment. Their front door which the police smashed trying to get in is the one under the balcony.

The lower yard offers an escape into the wooded area below the cottage and a path that comes up near the park on the north side of the town wall.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

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.

IMO everyone is overthinking this. Guede chose one of two obvious ways to break in, just as he chose one of two bathrooms to take a dump even though the other one would have been just as good.

 

[moodstream]

While there is a door on the same side of the building as Filomena's window, it is the back door to the boy's apartment. Their front door which the police smashed trying to get in is the one under the balcony.

The lower yard offers an escape into the wooded area below the cottage and a path that comes up near the park on the north side of the town wall.

I see. Thanks.

 

[acbytesla]

IMO everyone is overthinking this. Guede chose one of two obvious ways to break in, just as he chose one of two bathrooms to take a dump even though the other one would have been just as good.

Well said Charlie. I don't think people are noticing the grate on the window below. Without it, I think I would agree, the balcony would have been much much easier. But the grate was a built in ladder to that window.

 

[Planigale]

But you, you admit yourself that she was trivializing and downplaying the locked door, and that she was not expressing any urgency, insofar as you concede that "she may well have intended to be reassuring".

If she was reassuring, she was downplaying the locked door, and she was expressing that breaking down the door was not that urgent.

….

Morover, also the fact that she did not feel urgency itself is rather suspicious - this lack of concern, conflicting with her e-mail story, would be out of place even without the conflicting e-mail narrative.

What Knox does not say, what she does not communicate, her lack of urgency, may be even more important than the phrases she says.

And, the lost-in-translation theory is simply utterly non-credible. It is not credible that Sollecito got wrong a simple statement wording it like a rather peculiar "Meredith locks her door even when she takes a shower". And it is even less credible that he makes such gross translation mistake of delivering a wrong reassuring message, after he just attempted to break down the door himself (!) out of alleged Knox's anxiety (Knox allegedly even tried to enter from the window). And that this mistake was repeated twice.
And also, it is not credible that Sollecito failed to break down the door (a 60+ kg adult man, a kickboxer).
….
But we don't know why. Whe know that it was not because of Amanda Knox's alleged feeling of urgency, because such attitude is something she was not having.

But where is the anxiety, the urgency, the need and the intent of entering Meredith's room, as she expressed in her narrative, that she reports have lead her to attempt to break down the door some time prior to that moment?

Don't you think it's curious that she omits talking about the first time, and describes the event as if it just happened later, when Filomena was already there?
...
It's correct. And, it's the point. The point is that they themswelves were not consistent with the urgency they created, as for what comes out from the description of such urgency theu offer in their own account.

Why should AK have urgency? It is not as if she knew what was behind the locked door. This is a good demonstration that you cannot think logically. Most people find it difficult to think logically. Almost all your arguments are illogical and you are not capable of the degree of self criticism and analysis to recognise this. There are none so blind as will not see. Like many people here I assumed MK was guilty until I read the prosecution arguments that were so illogical I thought 'something funny here'.

Because you are looking back retrospectively knowing what was not known to the participants (like a play … this may be a consequence of your theatrical background?) you want to interpret behaviour in the light of what became known. You have to put that behind you, there is no reason for AK to be urgent. If she had been urgent that might have been evidence she knew what was behind the door and was guilty. It is like when she was pressurised into revealing who was present in the flat when MK was murdered; AK got it wrong, you think is evidence of guilt, I think this is evidence of innocence, if she had said RG the chances of an innocent person guessing right is low, the chances of an innocent person guessing wrong is high. You cannot think logically, you cannot think scientifically; set up a negative hypothesis, an a priori prediction, and see how it fits. Do not make up stats, where is the evidence that people decide on where to break in logically. How can you be logical? These are qualitative decisions that differing people will give differing weights to:- physical ease of access, vs concealment, vs daredevilry, vs ease of escape. Where is the study to validate your opinion on how thieves rate these issues? Be accurate, what is quoted is not AK, it is RS. RS says he mistranslated AK. We know his English was poor, AK Italian was poor and she is clearly not the most logical of souls. People rarely behave logically. Behaviour depends on certain generally effective paradigms at least partly hard wired that are in general effective rules of thumbs for survival. Logic is only useful in predicting the behaviour of Mr. Spock.

 

[katy_did]

IMO everyone is overthinking this. Guede chose one of two obvious ways to break in, just as he chose one of two bathrooms to take a dump even though the other one would have been just as good.

Sure. The thing is all these little variables really don't move things much in one direction or the other: maybe the balcony was a slightly easier climb, maybe it was easier to hide beneath Filomena's window, maybe the balcony was a bit less visible, maybe breaking Filomena's window was a bit more straightforward... The only thing that matters is that both were very plausible entry points.

If Guede had actually broken in through the kitchen window, of course, we'd now be hearing that no burglar would have run the risk of getting caught on the balcony, especially when there was another window with a 'ladder' beneath it, broken shutters and a latch which didn't firmly close. Amanda and Raffaele probably chose the kitchen window to stage the break-in so that they had an excuse to raise the alarm straight away, which wouldn't have worked with Filomena's room.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Sure. The thing is all these little variables really don't move things much in one direction or the other: maybe the balcony was a slightly easier climb, maybe it was easier to hide beneath Filomena's window, maybe the balcony was a bit less visible, maybe breaking Filomena's window was a bit more straightforward... The only thing that matters is that both were very plausible entry points.

If Guede had actually broken in through the kitchen window, of course, we'd now be hearing that no burglar would have run the risk of getting caught on the balcony, especially when there was another window with a 'ladder' beneath it, broken shutters and a latch which didn't firmly close. Amanda and Raffaele probably chose the kitchen window to stage the break-in so that they had an excuse to raise the alarm straight away, which wouldn't have worked with Filomena's room.

Exactly. This kind of argument can be constructed from anything. Start with the conclusion and reason backward to prop it up.

 

[Samson]

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.

And I wonder if she had no time to tidy her room, internationally broadcast pictures of the state of it being unforeseen, so it explains throwing Amanda under the bus for personal pride.

 

[Strozzi]

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.

You are right. She was running late and asked Raffaele to wrap the gift because she was short of time. Once she discovered that a burglar had entered through her bedroom window and murdered her housemate while she had gone away for the night to her boyfriend's (oh, excuse me, in Italian they are called "fiancée" ), Filomena recalled having tried to shut the shutters. Was she going to say "No, I didn't bother even though I was going to my boyfriend's place for several nights?". "I'm sure I tried to shut them - I shut them as much as I could - but couldn't shut them very far because the wood is swollen." "Oh, yes, Prosecutor Mignini, I agree with you that I must have shut them just about all the way".

 

[acbytesla]

Why should AK have urgency? It is not as if she knew what was behind the locked door. This is a good demonstration that you cannot think logically. Most people find it difficult to think logically. Almost all your arguments are illogical and you are not capable of the degree of self criticism and analysis to recognise this. There are none so blind as will not see. Like many people here I assumed MK was guilty until I read the prosecution arguments that were so illogical I thought 'something funny here'.

Because you are looking back retrospectively knowing what was not known to the participants (like a play … this may be a consequence of your theatrical background?) you want to interpret behaviour in the light of what became known. You have to put that behind you, there is no reason for AK to be urgent. If she had been urgent that might have been evidence she knew what was behind the door and was guilty. It is like when she was pressurised into revealing who was present in the flat when MK was murdered; AK got it wrong, you think is evidence of guilt, I think this is evidence of innocence, if she had said RG the chances of an innocent person guessing right is low, the chances of an innocent person guessing wrong is high. You cannot think logically, you cannot think scientifically; set up a negative hypothesis, an a priori prediction, and see how it fits. Do not make up stats, where is the evidence that people decide on where to break in logically. How can you be logical? These are qualitative decisions that differing people will give differing weights to:- physical ease of access, vs concealment, vs daredevilry, vs ease of escape. Where is the study to validate your opinion on how thieves rate these issues? Be accurate, what is quoted is not AK, it is RS. RS says he mistranslated AK. We know his English was poor, AK Italian was poor and she is clearly not the most logical of souls. People rarely behave logically. Behaviour depends on certain generally effective paradigms at least partly hard wired that are in general effective rules of thumbs for survival. Logic is only useful in predicting the behaviour of Mr. Spock.

Well said Planigale. Amanda DIDN'T know what had happened to Meredith. She expected her to be home. But that doesn't mean she didn't change her plans. You said it right. Machiavelli starts with the fact that Meredith is dead behind that door. No one knew that at the time. Imagine if they broke down the door and Meredith had spent the night with her friend Robyn or Sophie.

And then Meredith came home and her door was bashed open. Everyone would have thought that they over reacted.

When you think about it, Amanda's behavior is right on. She's concerned...and that concern grew and then after talking to Raffaele, it grows even more. They call Filomena, they call the police. Then she takes a back seat. The cottage is in Filomena's name. Amanda's native language is English..not Italian. It's Filomena's house. The lease is in her name, she's a native. Amanda is just renting a room.

 

[kwill]

Still hoping for someone who thinks A & R were involved to explain:

1. Why the meal Meredith ate between 6 and 6:30 pm had not even started to move into her small intestine if she was still alive at 11:30 pm. That process should have been completed during those 5 -5.5 hours, but it hadn't even begun.

2. Why Meredith would not try to call home again after her first attempt failed at 8:56 pm, 1 minute after she was seen on the CCTV heading home.

There are some might creative people around here, so I'm hoping one of them will help me out. These two facts, taken together, seem more meaningful than a hundred pages of guessing about whether Amanda was frantic or merely concerned over the locked door, or whether she was a party girl or an honor student, or whether her underwear was sexy or silly.

Time of death. Account for those two facts, neither of which is in dispute.

 

[Bill Williams]

IMO everyone is overthinking this. Guede chose one of two obvious ways to break in, just as he chose one of two bathrooms to take a dump even though the other one would have been just as good.

Well said Charlie. I don't think people are noticing the grate on the window below. Without it, I think I would agree, the balcony would have been much much easier. But the grate was a built in ladder to that window.

That's basically what my guy said two years ago. Instinctual second-storey people will simply take a look at the first opportunity of entry and if it looks accessible, would be up and in and poohing in the toilet, while the rest of us are arguing about if that or the balcony was an easier entry; or if the current pictures of the balcony were taken with a long lens or not, or if the shrubbery concealed the balcony.....

Which is probably a good thing, neither me nor Charlie, nor kwill or Katy_did, nor Briars nor NancyS nor acbytesla nor Planigale, neither Grinder nor Strozzi nor Samson nor Dan O., nor moodstream nor even dear Machiavelli.....

...... should consider a career as a second-storey artist.

 

[acbytesla]

Still hoping for someone who thinks A & R were involved to explain:

1. Why the meal Meredith ate between 6 and 6:30 pm had not even started to move into her small intestine if she was still alive at 11:30 pm. That process should have been completed during those 5 -5.5 hours, but it hadn't even begun.

2. Why Meredith would not try to call home again after her first attempt failed at 8:56 pm, 1 minute after she was seen on the CCTV heading home.

There are some might creative people around here, so I'm hoping one of them will help me out. These two facts, taken together, seem more meaningful than a hundred pages of guessing about whether Amanda was frantic or merely concerned over the locked door, or whether she was a party girl or an honor student, or whether her underwear was sexy or silly.

Time of death. Account for those two facts, neither of which is in dispute.

I think her digestion is extremely important and really tells the story. But why she didn't call again...that is unexplainable. It's kind of the equivalent of why she didn't take off her jacket. These are indicators that Meredith was killed soon after she arrived home. But they aren't conclusive. She didn't try again, because she didn't try again. She didn't take off her jacket because she didn't take off her jacket. These don't prove her time of death. But the state of her digestion. That really does prove that she was murdered at the time Rudy said she was. About 9:30 or earlier.

 

[Bill Williams]

Btw notice the different seasons.
Here in winter the trees have no leaves:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/4023752a19de7822e2.jpg[/qimg]

But they all had their leaves still on at the beginning of Novembe,r when the murder occurred, as from the photo:

Machiavelli - you've just established that the balcony is not exposed from these particular angles.

What about the other pics?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I see Amanda just posted about Chico Forti on her blog.

 

[kwill]

Still hoping for someone who thinks A & R were involved to explain:

1. Why the meal Meredith ate between 6 and 6:30 pm had not even started to move into her small intestine if she was still alive at 11:30 pm. That process should have been completed during those 5 -5.5 hours, but it hadn't even begun.

2. Why Meredith would not try to call home again after her first attempt failed at 8:56 pm, 1 minute after she was seen on the CCTV heading home.

There are some might creative people around here, so I'm hoping one of them will help me out. These two facts, taken together, seem more meaningful than a hundred pages of guessing about whether Amanda was frantic or merely concerned over the locked door, or whether she was a party girl or an honor student, or whether her underwear was sexy or silly.

Time of death. Account for those two facts, neither of which is in dispute.

I think her digestion is extremely important and really tells the story. But why she didn't call again...that is unexplainable.

And that's why I said TAKEN TOGETHER. Taken together, these two things are very strong evidence of an early time of death. The stomach contents are extremely convincing, but for those who want to say they're not determinative, there is the cell phone. And yes, the jacket. And the wet clothes still in the machine.

Anybody got a good argument for an 11:30 pm TOD?

 

[GreyFox]

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.

A much better picture than the tabloids like to show. And keep in mind the lawyers not all the way up the first window yet .

Most likely his feet would rest on top of the lower windows casing (or at least the top bar?).This would put his arm pits about even with Filomena's window ledge. I doubt he even has to jump. Just pull your self up.

I disagree with using a tall lawyer or a rock climber for this. They should have grabbed some wiry teenage kid and had him do it for a better demonstration.