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

[andreajo]

Actually it's quite the contrary; the perception that the break in was staged preceeded all narrative about the crime. Actually it even preceeded the discovery of the body. Battistelli and Marzi suspected it was staged even before they discovered the murder.

And, of course, they revisited this perception that the break-in was staged when they learned that the man whose DNA and prints were found on the scene was an athletic burglar who had a history of breaking in by throwing rocks through windows.

Oh wait. They didn't.

They had evidence that the break-in was staged, as I said, not a 'perception'.

Machiavelli, you said perception (see above). Maybe you meant evidence.

Nobody ever seriously considered that the break could be an authentic one, it just doesn't look so, and nobody ever will.

Yes, that's the problem. Nobody in the police and prosecution camp ever seriously considered that the break-in could be authentic. How do you evaluate the likelihood of something when you never think about it in a serious way? Wouldn't you think that the fact that peoples' futures are at stake would obligate people with power to consider all the possibilities in a serious way?

 

[davefoc]

Possible conversation between AK and RS about staging the break-in:


AK: Now we need to stage a break-in
RS: Why do we need to stage a break-in? We've just used our magic crime clean up tools and eliminated any evidence that we had anything to do with the murder.
AK: It doesn't matter, we still need to stage a break-in or they'll suspect that Rudy had partners.
RS: OK, I'll go unlock the patio door.
AK: No Roberto, that's too obvious the police will know that's where somebody would stage a break-in.
AK: Go smash the window in Filomena's room. The police won't suspect that we would stage a break-in there because who would stage a break-in where we can't tell if anybody could climb through the window or not.
RS: God I love having sex with you Amanda.
AK: Yes, Roberto.
At this point RS goes outside, finds a suitable rock, comes back inside and smashes the window. AK and RS now leave the cottage together.

 

[Kaosium]

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.

I wonder why that was? Who would be responsible for filing those charges and starting an investigation? Would it be the Public Ministry of Perugia perchance? The same one that found it necessary to start investigations/file charges on Amanda and Raffaele's families, all those journalists and add charges like the calunnia one?

You know, had Rudy been convicted of burglary for that other charge it might have been more difficult to prove the break-in was staged at the cottage and convict Amanda and Raffaele for 'staging' the break-in and stealing the money despite the fact it was Rudy who left his DNA on Meredith's purse and who really needed money being jobless and facing eviction and needing to flee the country and all.

Rudy would have gotten a longer sentence if he faced more charges and had priors, instead of being eligible for work release soon....

 

[acbytesla]

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.

Kaosium and Charlie seem to understand the digestion evidence very well.

I do feel that I have the expertise with the cell towers and unfortunately I haven't seen enough info to come to a solid conclusion. Dr. Pellero wrote a report for the defense, but I have never actually seen it translated. And that is beyond my scope.

The Lupatelli tower is 10 times closer than the the distant Strada Vincale tower that handled the 10:13 call. But honestly, that distant tower would still only be about a mile of Meredith's bedroom. The issues are line of sight and the how much the walls of her bedroom would effect transmission. There is no window pointing toward the close tower while there is a small window that does look across the valley toward the distant tower. But the window isn't in the best location for cell reception. Also, cell towers are tuned for power. A cell tower in the middle of Kansas might be powered for 10 even 15 miles, but a cell tower in downtown NYC is tuned for maybe a block or two. So without looking at the report I don't think anyone can give an accurate opinion.

 

[yimyammer]

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

All the pictures I've seen show those doors did have shutters. Do you have photos at the time of the crime that shows differently?

I'm talking about these double doors in green on the balcony shown below:

 

[HumanityBlues]

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.

It's a blessing to have bad arguments on the internet. You can make horrible arguments without having to worry about keeping a straight face that people can see. Obviously the fact that Rudy was never convicted of stealing the laptop is a plainly dumb argument. (1) A lawyer's office is broken into with a rock thrown through a window, and, oh my god, Rudy just happens to have the laptop (2) Two weeks later, there's a murder that Rudy is undeniably involved in, there's another rock and broken window. What on earth happened? (3) Rudy flees to Milan and is sleeping in some poor woman's office in a school with a knife, a stolen watch, and freaking hammer. The guy is a burglar, he steals stuff. He broke the window. He's the murder too. It's obvious.

One of the funniest explanations I've read regarding the fake break in, which I believe Fulcanelli was big on, was that if it was a real break in, how come the laptop wasn't stolen? Well (A) he already had a laptop because he stole one, and (B) did it ever cross a guilter's mind that maybe he wasn't preoccupied with taking a laptop after he brutally murdered someone? This stuff is so simple and straightforward.

*Grinder, obviously this above diatribe was not aimed at you personally.

 

[Grinder]

I wonder why that was? Who would be responsible for filing those charges and starting an investigation? Would it be the Public Ministry of Perugia perchance? The same one that found it necessary to start investigations/file charges on Amanda and Raffaele's families, all those journalists and add charges like the calunnia one?

And put Curatolo in jail just in time for the appeal trial for a 7 year old charge. Wonder why there were no statute problems?

 

[yimyammer]

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.

me too, I wish they had taken the camera crew down to the basketball courts and asked one of the guys of similar size and build as Rudy if he would attempt the climb on camera

 

[acbytesla]

All the pictures I've seen show those doors did have shutters. Do you have photos at the time of the crime that shows differently?

I'm talking about these double doors in green on the balcony shown below:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_4023752a19e6a2e321.jpg[/qimg]

That's a great picture yimyammer and just over think this some more. Climbing up to the balcony may be easy, bu the real problem with it is that the guys downstairs can surprise him much easier than Filomena's window. They can come around the house and bam, they catch Rudy in the act.

 

[Grinder]

It's a blessing to have bad arguments on the internet. You can make horrible arguments without having to worry about keeping a straight face that people can see. Obviously the fact that Rudy was never convicted of stealing the laptop is a plainly dumb argument. (1) A lawyer's office is broken into with a rock thrown through a window, and, oh my god, Rudy just happens to have the laptop (2) Two weeks later, there's a murder that Rudy is undeniably involved in, there's another rock and broken window. What on earth happened? (3) Rudy flees to Milan and is sleeping in some poor woman's office in a school with a knife, a stolen watch, and freaking hammer. The guy is a burglar, he steals stuff. He broke the window. He's the murder too. It's obvious.

One of the funniest explanations I've read regarding the fake break in, which I believe Fulcanelli was big on, was that if it was a real break in, how come the laptop wasn't stolen? Well (A) he already had a laptop because he stole one, and (B) did it ever cross a guilter's mind that maybe he wasn't preoccupied with taking a laptop after he brutally murdered someone? This stuff is so simple and straightforward.

*Grinder, obviously this above diatribe was not aimed at you personally.

I"m sure you didn't mean to say that he was at the Milan school after the murder as that happened before the killing. He lost his stolen laptop as the police in Milan knew it was stolen.

Now it certainly was a recent memory that he had been caught with a laptop, but if he broke in and was surprised by MK and killed her I'm sure his plans changed.

 

[HumanityBlues]

I"m sure you didn't mean to say that he was at the Milan school after the murder as that happened before the killing. He lost his stolen laptop as the police in Milan knew it was stolen.

Now it certainly was a recent memory that he had been caught with a laptop, but if he broke in and was surprised by MK and killed her I'm sure his plans changed.

Thanks for that clarification. Wrote that pretty fast. Point still stands, the guy was clearly a burglar.

 

[yimyammer]

Have many friends?



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?

its astounding to me how similar the circumstances of this crime is and how absurd it is to believe Rudy's explanation of what happened, yet it happened here and in that other crime we've been discussing

 

[yimyammer]

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.

me neither, I couldn't see the forest for the trees

 

[yimyammer]

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.

especially considering "whoever" (yeah, right) committed that crime used a rock to break the window pane in the door

 

[Strozzi]

Have many friends?



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?

Grinder, my good friend. Your research skills leave me amazed. I trouble you with a small but impotrant request. Can you please see if the document says the burglar laid several pieces of broken glass side-by-side on a desk or table as if assembling them together?

 

[Samson]

its astounding to me how similar the circumstances of this crime is and how absurd it is to believe Rudy's explanation of what happened, yet it happened here and in that other crime we've been discussing

In analysing this Micheli or Massei can't recall which started with the staged break in as fact, and eliminated Rudy, as they reasoned he would be suspected due to known previous form, therefore it was AK and RS who staged the break in, as they could have no knowledge of the previous. That is how PGP reason.

 

[yimyammer]

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.

IIRC, Mach said something to the effect that Rudy being caught at the nursery was not a crime even though he was caught red handed with money and property from the nursery. If true, I wonder how the events at the law office would be classified according to PLE, is that not a crime either?

 

[yimyammer]

It's a blessing to have bad arguments on the internet. You can make horrible arguments without having to worry about keeping a straight face that people can see. Obviously the fact that Rudy was never convicted of stealing the laptop is a plainly dumb argument. (1) A lawyer's office is broken into with a rock thrown through a window, and, oh my god, Rudy just happens to have the laptop (2) Two weeks later, there's a murder that Rudy is undeniably involved in, there's another rock and broken window. What on earth happened? (3) Rudy flees to Milan and is sleeping in some poor woman's office in a school with a knife, a stolen watch, and freaking hammer. The guy is a burglar, he steals stuff. He broke the window. He's the murder too. It's obvious.

One of the funniest explanations I've read regarding the fake break in, which I believe Fulcanelli was big on, was that if it was a real break in, how come the laptop wasn't stolen? Well (A) he already had a laptop because he stole one, and (B) did it ever cross a guilter's mind that maybe he wasn't preoccupied with taking a laptop after he brutally murdered someone? This stuff is so simple and straightforward.

*Grinder, obviously this above diatribe was not aimed at you personally.

I thought Rudy returned the stolen laptop?

 

[Dan O.]

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.

You are confused about the CCTV time. That's unedstandable since the prosecution has been telling lies about that time from the start.

Here is what we know:

• 20:55 Sophie Purton arrives home in Via del Lupo.
  Source Micheli Report. "On 17 November, P[urton] made a new prosecuting magistrate deposition...correcting the time that she was back in Via del Lupo, recalling that it was still 20:55".
• 20:56 Phone call from Meredith's phone to mother, cut off almost immediately.
  "In evidence on Friday, Stefano Sisani, of the Perugia flying squad, revealed that a call to Kercher’s mother, Arline, in Coulsdon, Surrey, was made from her mobile at 8.56pm on the night of November 1. She used the phone daily to call her mother, who was ill. The call was cut off before she got through" (Times Online, March 22, 2009)
  Theory that call was cut off by attack is unlikely, as Meredith would still be near Sophie's flat at this time. More likely explanation is that call was dropped because of poor signal in tight medieval streets.
  Logged in phone memory - Massei Report pg 350
• 21:04 Sighting of figure thought to be Meredith on the car park CCTV camera, CCTV time adjusted forward 12 minutes per the defense's theory.
  The figure is walking from left to right on the same side of the street as the cottage. CCTV time stamp was said to be 20:43 in early news reports (when the figure was thought to be Amanda); later reports of 20:41 are possibly a confusion with Guede's sighting at 19:41. Fits with Sophie's arrival home at 55".
  20:55, and the interrupted call at 20:56. Telegraph 2007-11-12Daily Mail 2009-03-14
• 21:05 Kercher arrives at cottage
  Time approximate, based on walk since leaving Sophie. Also matches up with female figure seen walking towards cottage gate on car park video at 20:43. Prosecution claims clock is 10 minutes fast, see 13:34 on Nov. 2 for why it's probably 12 minutes slow. Video available on web is cropped and doesn't show camera timestamps. A still from the video has been discovered showing the timestamp of 20:51:36.17

This controversy all started because when police inspector Mauro Barbadori picked up the video he didn't check the camera time himself but was told that there was a 10 minute offset by the parking garage attendant. The prosecution said that the CCTV clock was 10 minutes fast and that the clear image was that of Amanda arriving at the cottage at 20:41. We know now that the image was just a white spec crossing the street and the time was instead 10 to 12 minutes slow.

Meredith's phone call was just a minute or two after leaving Sophie and about 10 minutes before she would cross the street in front of the camera.

 

[yimyammer]

That's a great picture yimyammer and just over think this some more. Climbing up to the balcony may be easy, bu the real problem with it is that the guys downstairs can surprise him much easier than Filomena's window. They can come around the house and bam, they catch Rudy in the act.

As others have said, this whole debate about which access point is more logical is rather pointless but I'll throw in my two cents and say when I was a youngin', I was a devious little ****.

I'm embarrassed to admit that a buddy and I used to peep on girls through their windows and cause all other kinds of mayhem. When I look at the location of Filomena's window, I immediately notice how well hidden I would be below the retaining wall, I would like being blocked from opposing traffic by the house and how dark this area was to give me cover. Add in the fact that the house is several feet below the road so passing cars wouldn't be as likely to be focusing on it (& therefore see me), there are trees blocking the view coming toward me (even without leaves they provide cover) plus I can look to see if car lights are approaching before I attempt to make an ascent, the bars on the lower window make a great ladder and there are no bars on Filomena's window and it offers a pretty appealing entry point. IIRC, there is only one other window that doesn't have security bars, so I really only have one of two options if I'm not going to attempt to break down the front door or somehow pry the shutters covering the french doors on the balcony.

Add in the fact that Filomena said she couldn't close the shutters fully so it would appear I can easily reach up and try to pull the shutters open by putting my fingers through the unclosed gap and pull them in the direction they naturally swing. If I am successful in pulling the shutters open, I can then determine whether I can gain entry through the window. I'd also like the fact that I could easily flee toward the back yard if someone came up from the parking lot.

The one thing I wouldn't like is being cornered in the lower retaining wall area if someone where to come from around the corner of the lower flat.

Filomena's location strikes me as easily do-able and perhaps even more enticing given the reasons mentioned above.

But that's just one opinion that doesn't prove or disprove anything, especially to those that feel otherwise.