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

[GreyFox]

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.

Totally agree . Spur of moment decision for Filomenas window.

I still think he stole pot plants from downstairs though and the PLE swept it under the rug. Cat blood ??? Naw

 

[Kaosium]

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

What's the url to Amanda's blog? I went looking for it once and didn't find it, though I didn't spend all day looking.

 

[acbytesla]

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.

Osmotically all those things coalesce to an early TOD. That's the argument the PGP always makes. Everything put together points to Amanda doing it. Which is absolutely idiotic. Everything together actually proves they didn't do it.

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

I doubt it.
I noticed that even Crini even hedges on the TOD by almost abandoning the late TOD. Although he just says before 10:30.not the 9:30 or 9:05 that is most probable.

 

[acbytesla]

What's the url to Amanda's blog? I went looking for it once and didn't find it, though I didn't spend all day looking.

Amandaknox.com

 

[Kaosium]

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.

.
As long as it's not Rudy Guede doing the demonstration some will find a reason to claim it's still not as easy as these others make it look. Perhaps there's many who saw this picture (or one like it) and it cemented in their minds that it was an improbable climb and just can't change their minds about it and instead try to find any reason to object to any evidence presented.



Yeah, there it does look tougher as it the bars on the window below can't really be made out and it looks like a greater distance between the windows than it really is. Heh, there's a quote from Amanda in Massei having said something about it being impossible, she's wrong too. It's just not as tough as it looks, climbing the rope in gym class (without a wall nearby) is a tougher task.

 

[Grinder]

These are dumb arguments Grinder. Maybe to one burglar the balcony would be better, but to another, Filomena's window was fine.

Brilliant. Except PIP here have been arguing that the balcony was too visible but that doesn't seem dumb to you. My point is that getting into the argument over the window is dumb and that to me Mach is right that the balcony is not very visible.

 

[Grinder]

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:

Yes I was!!!!!. I'm not arguing how difficult the climb was only that the balcony looks a better way. And even though being an Olympic caliper climber I still picked the easiest route

 

[davefoc]

There is a problem with Machiavelli's argument even if you assume that the window with the broken glass is not the best entry point for a burglar.

If a presumed non-burglar such as Machiavelli didn't think the window with the broken glass was a good entry point why would AK/RS? There is no evidence that they had burglary experience either so presumably they would have thought something like Machiavelli and picked an entry point they would have thought more likely to stage the break-in. I think Grinder suggested just leaving a patio door open might have been a more likely place to stage a burglary entry point.

So Marchiavelli's argument that the window with the broken glass was unlikely for a burglar to chose as an entry point is an argument that cuts both ways. One can argue that makes it is more likely to have been a real entry point because RS/AK probably would have chosen a different entry point to stage a break-in. In the end neither of the arguments about the likelihood of a burglar choosing this window are probative with regards to the issue of whether it was a staged break-in once it was established that it was feasible to enter through it (Kaosium's point above I think).

But even if it wasn't possible to enter the cottage through that window that is still a long way from proving that the break-in was staged. Guede could have broken the window in an attempt to discover if the cottage was occupied or perhaps he broke the window and then discovered it was too difficult to enter the cottage through and used another technique.

If the prosecution was going to claim that the break-in was staged as part of their case where is the investigation to back up that claim? Was a forensic expert on broken glass called in to investigate the broken window? Were detailed photographs taken of where the glass shards ended up? Were experiments done to attempt to duplicate the location of the shards and rock to make a best estimate of how the breakage occurred? Was a microscopic examination done on the glass in an effort to determine the direction that the rock broke the glass from? Was the rock examined for paint that might have rubbed on to it after it impacted the shutters? Was the rock examined for damage that might have been caused by the glass to verify that the rock was used to break the glass? Was an attempt made to establish where in the garden the rock might have come from? Was the ground under the window examined for glass shards? Was the wall carefully examined for scuff marks from the shoes of somebody climbing up to the window?

If I understand Machiavelli on this it sounds like the police assumed the break-in was staged and never questioned this theory and never attempted to prove it. This probably would have been reasonable if they believed that they were called to investigate a routine feigned burglary for insurance fraud purposes. I can imagine that the Perugia police force resources are limited and the detailed investigation of every crime is not possible. But when did the Perugia police go back and examine their assumptions about this window in light of the fact that it was part of a murder investigation? If we are to believe Machiavelli they never did and on that it seems he is right.

 

[acbytesla]

Brilliant. Except PIP here have been arguing that the balcony was too visible but that doesn't seem dumb to you. My point is that getting into the argument over the window is dumb and that to me Mach is right that the balcony is not very visible.

My God...stop the presses. We agree on something.

I agree, it's silly to say that a burglar wouldn't break in through the balcony. But this burglar (Rudy) chose Filomena's window. It's like choosing one of 6 different ways to a buddy's home. You might choose one way one day and another the next.

 

[Grinder]

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.

Have many friends?

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.

No he didn't.

The witnesses Paolo Brocchi and Matteo Palazzoli, lawyers, testified on the subject of the burglary of their legal office, located in via del Roscetto 3, Perugia, on the night between Saturday October 13 and Sunday October 14, 2007. The thief or thieves had entered through a window whose panes had been smashed with a rather large stone; the glass was scattered around, and they had found some of their clothing on top of the glass (p. 10, hearing June 6, 2009). From the first inventory they did, they found that a computer, a cell phone, USB keys and a portable printer were missing. On October 29, a colleague in the law office had called the lawyer Paolo Brocchi to tell him that in the corridor was a person who said that he had been found with some goods in Milan, goods that had been declared stolen by the lawyer Brocchi, but which he claimed to have purchased legitimately in Milan. Later, the lawyer Paolo Brocchi recognised this person as Rudy Guede (p. 20, hearing of June 6, 2009).
The lawyer Palazzoli, who testified at the same hearing, and who was a colleague in the same law firm as Brocchi, declared that the broken window was "a French window opening onto a small balcony overlooking the inner courtyard of the building; beneath it, corresponding precisely to our window, there is a door equipped with a metal grille..." (p. 41, hearing of June 26, 2009). He also stated that he had been notified that the computer which had been stolen from him had been found in Milan.


Where did you get the idea these lawyers went to Germany?

 

[acbytesla]

Yes I was!!!!!. I'm not arguing how difficult the climb was only that the balcony looks a better way. And even though being an Olympic caliper climber I still picked the easiest route

Hell, I'm kicking the front door in. I couldn't climb either today. But I don't think you have to be an Olympic caliber climber. Just an athletic guy. Both ways probably look easy if you are 6 feet and 150 lbs and you spend your days playing basketball.

 

[Grinder]

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.

People are not missing noticing the grate. People here are infallible.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

What's the url to Amanda's blog? I went looking for it once and didn't find it, though I didn't spend all day looking.

http://www.amandaknox.com/blog/

It's worth checking out the links she posted. Forti is the innocent victim of a screwed up justice system that considers speculation and fantasy to be as good as evidence.

And that is a subject Amanda Knox understands.

 

[Kaosium]

Yes I was!!!!!. I'm not arguing how difficult the climb was only that the balcony looks a better way. And even though being an Olympic caliper climber I still picked the easiest route

Apologies then, I got you mixed up with someone else or misunderstood the implications of your argument in the post I responded to and previous ones. Come to think of it I may have done that with Machiavelli as well, he was arguing there was a better choice not that the climb was improbable as I noticed when reviewing those posts. I think Filomena's window has certain advantages as well and quite frankly Rudy probably certainly didn't spend as much time thinking about it as we've spent arguing about it!

 

[acbytesla]

People are not missing noticing the grate. People here are infallible.

Good one.

 

[Kaosium]

http://www.amandaknox.com/blog/

It's worth checking out the links she posted. Forti is the innocent victim of a screwed up justice system that considers speculation and fantasy to be as good as evidence.

And that is a subject Amanda Knox understands.

Thank you, and Tesla too, I didn't try the obvious one I just googled for it and didn't find it on the first few pages.

 

[HumanityBlues]

There is a problem with Machiavelli's argument even if you assume that the window with the broken glass is not the best entry point for a burglar.

If a presumed non-burglar such as Machiavelli didn't think the window with the broken glass was a good entry point why would AK/RS? There is no evidence that they had burglary experience either so presumably they would have thought something like Machiavelli and picked an entry point they would have thought more likely to stage the break-in. I think Grinder suggested just leaving a patio door open might have been a more likely place to stage a burglary entry point.

So Marchiavelli's argument that the window with the broken glass was unlikely for a burglar to chose as an entry point is an argument that cuts both ways. One can argue that makes it is more likely to have been a real entry point because RS/AK probably would have chosen a different entry point to stage a break-in. In the end neither of the arguments about the likelihood of a burglar choosing this window are probative with regards to the issue of whether it was a staged break-in once it was established that it was feasible to enter through it (Kaosium's point above I think).

But even if it wasn't possible to enter the cottage through that window that is still a long way from proving that the break-in was staged. Guede could have broken the window in an attempt to discover if the cottage was occupied or perhaps he broke the window and then discovered it was too difficult to enter the cottage through and used another technique.

If the prosecution was going to claim that the break-in was staged as part of their case where is the investigation to back up that claim? Was a forensic expert on broken glass called in to investigate the broken window? Were detailed photographs taken of where the glass shards ended up? Were experiments done to attempt to duplicate the location of the shards and rock to make a best estimate of how the breakage occurred? Was a microscopic examination done on the glass in an effort to determine the direction that the rock broke the glass from? Was the rock examined for paint that might have rubbed on to it after it impacted the shutters? Was the rock examined for damage that might have been caused by the glass to verify that the rock was used to break the glass? Was an attempt made to establish where in the garden the rock might have come from? Was the ground under the window examined for glass shards? Was the wall carefully examined for scuff marks from the shoes of somebody climbing up to the window?

If I understand Machiavelli on this it sounds like the police assumed the break-in was staged and never questioned this theory and never attempted to prove it. This probably would have been reasonable if they believed that they were called to investigate a routine feigned burglary for insurance fraud purposes. I can imagine that the Perugia police force resources are limited and the detailed investigation of every crime is not possible. But when did the Perugia police go back and examine their assumptions about this window in light of the fact that it was part of a murder investigation? If we are to believe Machiavelli they never did and on that it seems he is right.

I think Grinder mentioned this earlier, but he had already done the same thing at the lawyers office about two weeks earlier (maybe a month, I can't remember). It's called an MO.

The guilters have argued that there's no proof it was Rudy....even though he had the freaking laptop computer that was stolen from the office. And then, just coincidentally, there's another smashed window at another crime scene (the murder house), in which he was directly involved. Rudy broke the window. It's obvious. This stuff is so incredibly simple it's actually funny to see people arguing about it.

 

[Grinder]

Apologies then, I got you mixed up with someone else or misunderstood the implications of your argument in the post I responded to and previous ones. Come to think of it I may have done that with Machiavelli as well, he was arguing there was a better choice not that the climb was improbable as I noticed when reviewing those posts. I think Filomena's window has certain advantages as well and quite frankly Rudy probably certainly didn't spend as much time thinking about it as we've spent arguing about it!

 

[Grinder]

I think Grinder mentioned this earlier, but he had already done the same thing at the lawyers office about two weeks earlier (maybe a month, I can't remember). It's called an MO.

The guilters have argued that there's no proof it was Rudy....even though he had the freaking laptop computer that was stolen from the office. And then, just coincidentally, there's another smashed window at another crime scene (the murder house), in which he was directly involved. Rudy broke the window. It's obvious. This stuff is so incredibly simple it's actually funny to see people arguing about it.

There is little doubt that he broke one way or the other.

There was a time that the PGP argued that Amanda or Raf might have read about the lawyers' burglary in the local paper or that he had told them about it.

It's his MO but Mach et al. will argue he was never convicted.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

there is only one TOD in reality

I noticed that even Crini even hedges on the TOD by almost abandoning the late TOD. Although he just says before 10:30.not the 9:30 or 9:05 that is most probable.

We are not talking about relativistic or quantum physics (either of which allow for some pretty strange events, by the standards of ordinary experience). For any prosecutor to say that it is a very broad time when they know that it is not, would be underhanded: it makes the defense have to prove alibis for a large range of times, assuming that an alibi defense is being presented.

Meredith died at one time, not two. The prosecution should state what that time is, as part of a larger narrative/timeline (not that I am holding my breath). Besides the lack of contents in her duodenum, there is also the communication of her phone with a cell tower that is distant from the women's flat. I don't have expertise to know exactly how to weight this, but it is independent of the duodenum evidence.