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

[Grinder]

.
I think there is a lot of confusion about the climber's demonstration. I think it is important to clear this up, maybe even explain it to the judge and jurors.

Grinder is right that the guy does not get himself all the way up to the ledge without using the bars.

Bill and others are right that if you are not allowed to use the bars, then they restrict movement and hinder the climber's ability to climb up to and over the ledge. In fact, it is the reason the climber could not and did not do it.

Thanks for verification that he didn't get up without the bars.

The climber could and did climb to the sill with the bars in place. I see no evidence in visuals or narrative that indicates that the bars present any problem except entry, of course.

The bars were undoubtedly used for his last climb and that's why the camera cut away from the climb and why the lawyer asked if the bars were needed. They cut the video up later. The lawyer had just watched the kid grab the bars and pull himself up. Imagine you are there filming the climb and the guy keeps using the bars that weren't there that night. Not good reality TV.

But the climber was not trying to demonstrate he could climb up on to the ledge while the bars are in place. He was explaining and demonstrating how Rudy could have easily entered if the bars were not there.

Once again nothing about the bars presenting a problem getting to the sill, which he does while the camera footage is missing.

Listen to what he says leading up to this:

01:19 'It is not a problem to open' (the shutters)

01:38 'And if you want you can break the glass and clean the pieces of the glass that remain in the window'

01:45 'And then you can pull yourself up and go in the windows without bars'

The above is when the climber pulls himself up to demonstrate how it would be done if the bars were not there. He is expecting the viewer to understand that if the bars are not there, and the window is open, it would be easy to complete the entry. He is expecting the viewer to visualize the rest!

There is one other thing to mention. It would be even easier to just unlatch and open the window, rather than cleaning the glass from the inside of the frame. It demonstrates that the climber is not an experienced burglar.

Perhaps. He, however, never says that the bars get in his way. Had they not been there and he broke the window with a big rock and the window and the inner shutters opened he would have no problem pulling himself into the room. I do think he would have had a problem reaching through the window and unlatching it if that were necessary.

 

[andreajo]

A sad consequence of being a London resident is having been the attempted victim of a knifepoint mugging. Much to my embarrassment the mugger was about 12 and smaller than me (if possible); actually there were two. Having failed to lure me off the main street by offering me cannabis he then pulled a small knife on me. Sadly I could not do a Crocodile Dundee as unlike AK (allegedly) I do not keep a kitchen knife in my hand bag. Smaller he may have been but I wasn't going to argue with a knife. If anyone is interested in the outcome I ******* ran for it. Weapons trump size.

Tell me about it. You don't have to be in London though. I was also a victim of a knifepoint mugging once. Didn't manage to run though, as they were a bunch of guys on motorcycles and they started kicking me as I tried to run away. Then one of them held a knife to my throat and I can tell you that at that point fighting was the last thing on my mind. And I did some trianing in Judo when I was younger. Yes, they were more than one, but I know the sensation of having a knife put to your throat.

It bugs me when people say, "He couldn't have", or "She would have" or "I would never have" or "an innocent person wouldn't do that" as if that can really be known outside a real situation. Different people will react in different ways in extremely stressful situations, as your stories illustrate. Good for you for coming away safe.

I thought I was going to arch beautifully and be very cool on my first (only) skydive. Instead, I had an involuntary reaction and tried to climb back into the plane. Of course, the plane was already too far away to climb back aboard. Very entertaining for my watching friends.

 

[Grinder]

I think from the defence perspective all that needs to be shown is that the climb is not impossibly difficult. They don't need to show that Rudy could not possibly have botched the climb, or show exactly how he placed each hand and foot, they just need to show that there's nothing terribly improbable about postulating that he did it.

Yup and that's why I've been lobbying for the video to be shown in court.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

AFAIK the explanation for "lack of defensive wounds" has other possibilities than being restrained. There is also a strategy of compliance.... the horrible thing about this is one has about 1/2 a second to come up with a strategy, and if this is the first time one has faced this..... well, you get the drift. It's just that the equation lack-of-defensive-wounds=being-restrained is not necessarily so



I think they'll be convicted... and it will be on the basis of what Cassazione in effect ordered the Nencini court to fins as factual - my reading of Italian law is that this oversteps Cassazione's authority.

Otherwise, this third trial has heard two bits of "hard evidence", both settled in favour of the defence. Go figure. Also, the lack of defence protest is that those lawyers know that they risk losing their liberty if they call it as the actually see it.

Bill

Apologies, I missed your post. However, I think I addressed your points in subsequent posts. I really don’t know how this appeal will end and as Grinder posted the Italian court procedure doesn’t seem to allow those TV court shows moments we’re all use to seeing.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

I think from the defence perspective all that needs to be shown is that the climb is not impossibly difficult. They don't need to show that Rudy could not possibly have botched the climb, or show exactly how he placed each hand and foot, they just need to show that there's nothing terribly improbable about postulating that he did it.

-

I have (in my younger days) helped break into places and enjoyed the spoils of this illegality, and trust me when I tell you, that climb and break in theory is believable when you've seen how actual burglaries have gone down and breaking in that place and in that manner would have been a breeze compared to how some of these places I've been involved with were broken into.

The only real problem I have with the break-in theory is the location of the break-in, but I have stolen ciggs late at night by throwing a rock at a store window (one that closed a little after midnight and was right on a main road) and then running, hiding and watching for an hour before going in.

I would have looked for a more secluded way in, but from what I've seen there wasn't any way easier. Personally, if I had STAGED a break in, I would have kicked the door in on the ground floor. It's easier and if you do it right, it doesn't make any more noise than a broken window.

But, that's me,

d

-

 

[Grinder]

--

In the TV show, Perry Mason tended to use factoids to get the witness to confess.

-

He didn't use false information that had been in the press numerous times, which is what a factoid is.

Paul had uncovered some information that Perry put together that he could use to get the person in the visitors' gallery or on the stand to confess.

 

[Matthew Best]

Still at least we know that the show demonstrated the following week that JFK was shot by one of his own secret service agents.

I think you just made that up.

 

[LondonJohn]

A sad consequence of being a London resident is having been the attempted victim of a knifepoint mugging. Much to my embarrassment the mugger was about 12 and smaller than me (if possible); actually there were two. Having failed to lure me off the main street by offering me cannabis he then pulled a small knife on me. Sadly I could not do a Crocodile Dundee as unlike AK (allegedly) I do not keep a kitchen knife in my hand bag. Smaller he may have been but I wasn't going to argue with a knife. If anyone is interested in the outcome I ******* ran for it. Weapons trump size.

This is a timely and relevant illustration of the important point here. The most logical and reasonable thing to do (even in the heat of the moment) if one is confronted by somebody wielding a serious-looking knife with intent and menace is either to run away if at all possible, or submit and comply if cornered. The thing NOT to do is initiate any sort of physical confrontation, nor to give the knife-holder any sort of reason/motivation to use the knife.

And that's why I objectively believe that it is entirely likely that Guede - alone - managed to force Meredith Kercher into a submissive and compliant manner very quickly. It's basic human psychology. If Meredith realised there was no way to escape from Guede (he would have been blocking her only exit route, through her bedroom door), then she would have been faced with two immediate options: 1) engage Guede - a powerful, heavier man with a large knife - in some sort of physical struggle, with the blindlingly-obvious potential negative consequences; or 2) be compliant and obey his instructions, in the hope (expectation?) that this presents your beffer chance of coming to no physical harm.

Remember also (as I and others have repeated several times) that we all have the sad ex-post-facto knowledge that Meredith ended up dead. But she wouldn't have known this at the time she was facing the decision outlined in the previous paragraph. I'd argue that it's more than likely, in fact, that Meredith would have believed that Guede's primary motivation was robbery. I think it's also more than likely that he would have indicated to her that if she didn't fight back, she'd be OK and that he wouldn't hurt her (and by contrast, if she DID fight back, he'd hurt her badly). In those circumstance, I'd judge that most people would comply and hope for the best.

As a sad codicil, I also know someone who was killed in a foreign country. He was in a car with other members of his family, coming back into their gated compound. In an inside-arranged job, some robbers were waiting within the compound, and stopped the car at gunpoint demanding money. Now, all the advice (based on solid evidence of past events)was to entirely comply with the robbers' demands: they are after cash and valuables, and almost always have no other primary motive.

But instead of becoming compliant and saying "take whatever you want", the driver (who was a rather gung-ho sort who'd been in the army) decided that no two-bit robber was going to take his stuff. He stepped on the accelerator and tried to speed off. They robbers opened fire reflexively, killing the passenger and injuring another. Therein lies a lesson, I think................

 

[AmyStrange]

-

He didn't use false information that had been in the press numerous times, which is what a factoid is.

Paul had uncovered some information that Perry put together that he could use to get the person in the visitors' gallery or on the stand to confess.

-

Yup, you're right. Sometimes he would prove the evidence was faked, or the TOD was different, because he knew his ◊◊◊◊ about forensics, unlike these "let's make it up as we go along" dis-forensic cowboys in Italy,

d

-

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I think you just made that up.

Check it out.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

In my opinion, there are two type of defensive wounds.

First are the obvious one's that everyone talks about like cuts and bruises on the hands and arms from fending off a knife or a fist.

The other ones are a result of other defenses like trying to run away (which is also a defense), and being grabbed, thrown against a wall or anything similar that can cause disorientation.

Once you're down (unlike TV), that's pretty much the end of the party,

d

-

 

[Bill Williams]

Check it out.

It's an old theory.... I think the book that it's from is "Mortal Error", a 1992 non-fiction book by Bonar Menninger.

A lot of what happened in Dealey Plaza that day is simply unknowable, but many have made a bit of pocket change rearranging the knowable evidence, like Menninger did.

Back to the documentary, and the climb in through the window. This demonstration is subject to all the caveats listed here... of course it would have been better to go get some random guys, 20-somethings, shooting hoops in the square... then take the bars off the window.... do it at night with a small amount of traffic using the road - simulating the night after Hallowe'en.

The use of the Channel 5 documentary for me is as mentioned, my own intro to this was in Aug 2011 with Kermit's powerpoint where Kermit's thesis was that the thing was impossible to do. I got advice back then from a friend who knew of such things that Kermit's powerpoint was bogus... that whoever Kermit was he should keep his day-job, because he did not at all understand second-storey burglaries...

... but for me, seeing that guy on Channel 5 do it so easily, pretty much settles the matter. It was eminently doable.

The other side of this is that guilters have been spending hours and hours in the last 6 years saying that the thing was impossible - one could perhaps even forgive, though, the initial ILE folks; they looked at Amanda, Raffaele, and Lumumba.... Raffaele and Lumumba perhaps could not have done it - and Amanda had a key.....

The real poser is; why when the ILE substituted Rudy for Patrick that the light did not go on! Why even the need for Amanda and Raffaele to have been involved - no forensics pointing to them, and the means of entry for Rudy is obvious.... but they had this theory of some sort of "evilness" or "psychopathology" about Knox... they simply would not let that go, and there is no evidence at all to support either.

That's the import of the documentary, really.

 

[Dan O.]

Yes, my only point was that you'll only know these things after you actually perform the measurement, not before. You shouldn't argue that a large estimate error is a reason to not perform the measurement because you don't know if the error is large before performing the measurement.

And what I am saying is that from the pure mathematical point of view, before taking any measurment, you know that the expected error doubles every hour or so that you delay taking the measurment. By putting off the measurment for 7 or 8 hours you pretty much insure that the calculated TOD is useless. That may have been the intent as we have seen in this case the pesky TOD will tend to get in the way of prosecuting suspects that happen to have alibis for the actual time that the crime was committed. From the prosecutors perspective it is best if there are wide margins.

 

[MDDVS]

And what I am saying is that from the pure mathematical point of view, before taking any measurment, you know that the expected error doubles every hour or so that you delay taking the measurment. By putting off the measurment for 7 or 8 hours you pretty much insure that the calculated TOD is useless. That may have been the intent as we have seen in this case the pesky TOD will tend to get in the way of prosecuting suspects that happen to have alibis for the actual time that the crime was committed. From the prosecutors perspective it is best if there are wide margins.

Yes, I see, I agree with you. They should have taken the temperature as soon as possible instead of delaying until the measurement became useless.

 

[Dan O.]

The first move the rock climber makes from the crouched position doesn't seem an untrained one, but now we will hear from all the Olympic athletes here that naturally used the move as mere tikes to scale tall buildings etc.

What kind of protected childhood did you have where you weren't able to explore your environment? Climbing is natural and there is nothing spectacular about that move.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

It's an old theory.... I think the book that it's from is "Mortal Error", a 1992 non-fiction book by Bonar Menninger.

A lot of what happened in Dealey Plaza that day is simply unknowable, but many have made a bit of pocket change rearranging the knowable evidence, like Menninger did.

Back to the documentary, and the climb in through the window. This demonstration is subject to all the caveats listed here... of course it would have been better to go get some random guys, 20-somethings, shooting hoops in the square... then take the bars off the window.... do it at night with a small amount of traffic using the road - simulating the night after Hallowe'en.

The use of the Channel 5 documentary for me is as mentioned, my own intro to this was in Aug 2011 with Kermit's powerpoint where Kermit's thesis was that the thing was impossible to do. I got advice back then from a friend who knew of such things that Kermit's powerpoint was bogus... that whoever Kermit was he should keep his day-job, because he did not at all understand second-storey burglaries...

... but for me, seeing that guy on Channel 5 do it so easily, pretty much settles the matter. It was eminently doable.

The other side of this is that guilters have been spending hours and hours in the last 6 years saying that the thing was impossible - one could perhaps even forgive, though, the initial ILE folks; they looked at Amanda, Raffaele, and Lumumba.... Raffaele and Lumumba perhaps could not have done it - and Amanda had a key.....

The real poser is; why when the ILE substituted Rudy for Patrick that the light did not go on! Why even the need for Amanda and Raffaele to have been involved - no forensics pointing to them, and the means of entry for Rudy is obvious.... but they had this theory of some sort of "evilness" or "psychopathology" about Knox... they simply would not let that go, and there is no evidence at all to support either.

That's the import of the documentary, really.

I don’t know, seems like cherry picking to me; the climb proves one thing but let’s ignore the shows other ridiculous tests and conclusions. The show lacked credibility in my opinion.

 

[Strozzi]

-


-

I have (in my younger days) helped break into places and enjoyed the spoils of this illegality, and trust me when I tell you, that climb and break in theory is believable when you've seen how actual burglaries have gone down and breaking in that place and in that manner would have been a breeze compared to how some of these places I've been involved with were broken into.

The only real problem I have with the break-in theory is the location of the break-in, but I have stolen ciggs late at night by throwing a rock at a store window (one that closed a little after midnight and was right on a main road) and then running, hiding and watching for an hour before going in.

I would have looked for a more secluded way in, but from what I've seen there wasn't any way easier. Personally, if I had STAGED a break in, I would have kicked the door in on the ground floor. It's easier and if you do it right, it doesn't make any more noise than a broken window.

But, that's me,

d

-

AmyStrange, I did similar things, too, when I was younger. But I did it for God and country - not cigarettes.

 

[acbytesla]

People often sense clues that something is out of the ordinary or wrong but don't know what the clues mean. As they become more suspicious they are still reluctant to call the police. People resist thinking the worst.

I was once parking my car in a parking lot. A man was leaning at a low height against a new- model car's door watching me move past slowly. Another car passed near and he and the driver of that car seemed to make eye contact. I drove around the lane and came back again and parked. As I walked past his car he had the door open and was 2/3 in the driver's seat bending low as if doing something near the floor.

Only 20 minutes later did I realize that I had witnessed a car being stolen. He must have seen me when he was jimming the door and stopped his action while I passed by. His second position was him leaning down to hotwire ignition wires under the steering column. The other car circling was his partner who brought him to the parking lot and was serving as lookout.

20 minutes had passed before the clues I saw came together in my mind. I obviously sensed something was unusual or wrong, otherwise it would not have continued to bother me and I would not have still been mulling it over in my mind 20 minutes later. By this time, the incident had passed. They were long gone. I did not call the police.

Having seen this once and belatedly recognizing what was occurring, I am attuned to it. The next time I observe similar movements I will instantly recognize what is occurring and call the police, get a description, and photograph them with my cell phone. I'm sure police, with their experience, are very sharp at spotting this. It is an acquired skill.

I laugh about this since I know the feeling oh too well.

I use to live in the Eastlake area of Seattle. A nice apartment with a great view of Lake Union and the Space Needle. The only problem with the apartment is that it had only one parking space. And I had a roommate. So if the space was occupied by his car, I would park on the crowded street in the neighborhood. Which meant I parked in a different spot all the time and sometimes as many as a couple of blocks away.

Well, on one occasion I went out to my car to discover that my car was missing. But I didn't believe it. I figured I just forgot where I parked it. I probably walked the streets around my house for about an hour before I finally called the police. I simply didn't want to believe that the car was stolen. There had to be another explanation.

People are so damn sure of themselves in hindsight. I'm always amazed at people's arrogance when they have that benefit.

Sure, there were clues that maybe Amanda should have recognized. But can you blame her? (Well obviously the cops and the guilters are doing exactly that.) Amanda is in new city, a new country, a new language, a new house with new roommates. How can she seriously be expected to be confident of anything?

Reading anything to extra 10 or 20 minutes of indecision is absurd.

 

[Skind]

The first move the rock climber makes from the crouched position doesn't seem an untrained one,

It is an untrained one, although he's likely received further instruction and practice.

It's so simple, I had to search for the 'proper' name.

It's simply not that difficult if you've tried it before.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill

Apologies, I missed your post. However, I think I addressed your points in subsequent posts. I really don’t know how this appeal will end and as Grinder posted the Italian court procedure doesn’t seem to allow those TV court shows moments we’re all use to seeing.

I'd prefer to say that you'd acknowledged them: "addressed" has a connotation for me that you expressed an opinion. There are some things here you simply will not express an opinion about, although you do acknowledge them as issues.

Fair enough.

I am not making reference to TV crime shows here... The ISC ordered review of about 12 points, including not simply discounting Curatolo and Quintavalle, as well as looking into Aviello's story (was he paid off by the Sollcito's?) and "proving contamination", rather than just merely acquitting on the basis that Stefanoni's work was substandard.

Oh yes, there was the direction to look into "sex-game gone wrong" as a motive, and not discounting it so fast.

What's happened? Aviello came in and said basically the same as last time. The prosecutor didn't move a muscle to accuse him of being paid off by the Sollecito's, except perhaps to assert it, which Aviello denied. (Crini provided no evidence, and just dropped the matter - or so it seemed to me.)

Have Curatolo or Quintavalle even been brought up? Certainly Quintavalle is still alive and available to the court. Was he the guy with the Samsung phone in the gallery?

The RIS Carabinieri brought a report about 36I. It was Amanda's DNA. So far as I know the court has not heard anything to do with allegations of contamination, at least to the point where Crini made an impassioned plea to Nencini that contamination must be proven. And this was a key point of the ISC reversal!

Certainly unidentified male DNA found on the bra-clasp alone suggests contamination, and as Halkides says no one in any jurisdiction actually ever proves the exact route of contamination in forensic work. It's up to the lab doing the work to show that it followed accepted anti-contamination protocols, something Stefanoni did not do ( and she made the incredible claim that she'd never had a case where contamination was a problem!)

And guess what happened to the ISC's order to review the sex-game-gone-wrong? Crini substituted the cleanliness motive, and not even in the bathroom that Amanda and Meredith shared. Even you must bristle at the caricature of Meredith in this, that she was a whiney complainer about the American's filthy toilet habits. Everything I ever heard about Meredith was that she was a calm, problem solver, rather than someone who'd even participate in a presumed escalating fight about cleanliness....

And no one, not ISC nor Crini nor defence nor Nencini, wants the presumed semen stain tested!

The defence brings in actual evidence about the computer harddrives - at least someone is interested in evidence at court. As I understand it (and correct me if I'm wrong) it shows that random, human initiated interruptions to the screen saver happened all night which preclude Sollecito from ever leaving the apartment.

I suppose then that Nencini's court could convict Knox and acquit Sollecito and invent some reason why he'd lie about his alibi for her....

This is not a TV crime show. No writer would write it this way.

The one thing that Italian courts allow which even the TV shows don' is all the invective aimed towards the accused.... do you think Knox is Lucerfina?

It's why I go on and on about even Massei finding that there's no psychopathology in the two. That seems to be the basis of the case for many, the evilness of Knox, her ability to think on the fly how an 18 minute delay in calling 112 will influence the investigation, her ability to choose not to sleep allows her to pull the wool over the eyes of trained interrogators at interrogation.....

Someone is making a big deal about psychopathology, and the court record does not show it... except for perhaps transcripts of testimony where prosecutor's early on were leading witnesses in that direction.

I've always wondered at why those who claim the prosecutors themselves never claimed this, are the same ones who react so badly when it's pointed out that even Massei, the convicting judge, saw no psychopathology - just doped up kids making a choice for evil, because they were far from the normal constraints of home.

No psychopathology. None.

Yet I could point you to websites where that's the dominant theme.