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

[Grinder]

I've got leaves on my roof as well, due to the big tree that overhangs. Until I got gutter shields each fall rainstorm was a race as to whether I could get out there and unclog the gutters before the water pooled up so much it would flood the basement. Climbing ladders in freezing rain is bracing, I assure you.

Ladders schmadders. Just go out grab the window sill and fault to the roof. Didn't learn anything as a kid?

Leaves around my house travel a couple hundred of feet easily during a windy day. I clean out my gutters before big rain if possible, works out great.

On the other side of the house where there's no trees (but some in the yard next door) I may have no leaves at all underneath the windows and few used to get in those gutters, it's an unlikely occurrence.

Do you think a leaf being on that sill makes it more likely someone might have climbed up there?

Doesn't mean one way or another. Muddy footprints would be definite. Having watched the video it is clear that Rudy could climb in leaving very little evidence behind.

 

[Dan O.]

Trees blow leaves on ledges often.

The issue isn't that their was a leaf or two in Filomena's room. The issue is that the guilters claimed that the lack of such debris was proof that the break in had been staged.

 

[Bill Williams]

How do you interpret looking for a quick marriage to a stranger to get a visa?The texts are not disputable BTW.

Well, one Briars, it doesn't work that way. You can marry someone abroad, but that doesn't mean they automatically get to immigrate to the US. A friend of mine married a girl he met in Korea. She wasn't provided an actual green card for 4 years.

They would never provide Raffaele with a green card with this hanging over his head. Ever, ever, ever.

I'm struggling with how to compose a message that will survive moderation. The one I have in mind; heck, even I would ban the poster for life for even thinking it.

"Quick marriage to a stranger"? But instead of being lured into this complete bit of idiocy (ooops, remember: moderation)....

... let's talk about leaves on window sills and in rooms, particularly the rooms where for 6 years, guilters/haters have claimed that the lack of such things proved a staging..... now the guilters are saying, "The wind must have blown it in..." Sure, wink, wink, oh sure.

I now raise acbytesla to 30 to 1, Briars will not deal with that issue. It's the slutty stuff that seems to occupy some....

..... ooops, moderation, moderation.....

 

[Wildhorses]

What is BARD?

Obviously, Bongiorno thought there was some hope of Raff and Amanda receiving different verdicts. But yeah, it's gonna require tricky osmotic maneuvering.

 

[Strozzi]

I never sit in the cheap seats.

You didn't indicate if you had read the story and watched the videos. His first interview started my impression of him. What did you think of it?

His on-line activity seems ill-advised and his travels at the times he's taking them, also the same. His disregarding his father and carrying a knife to the police station while being interviewed for a murder committed with a knife didn't seem that sharp.

You're right, but you are taking Raffaele out of his cultural context. Raffaele had been carrying a pocket knife in his pocket since he was about 12. All the boys in his social group did. For him, it was like carrying a keychain. If he was female, it would have been a hairbrush or compact. A tool of sorts. Raffaele was not involved in Meredith's murder; certainly his pocket knife (or kitchen knife) was not the murder weapon. It was obvious a burglar had entered the house and attacked Meredith. Raffaele was not aware he had to sanitize himself. That is an acquired thought process - get a lawyer, don't talk to the police, leave you pocket knife at home. Young innocent people live in a different world that more worldly critical thinkers.

 

[acbytesla]

The issue isn't that their was a leaf or two in Filomena's room. The issue is that the guilters claimed that the lack of such debris was proof that the break in had been staged.

Precisely. Their whole case is predicated on the lack of evidence of an actual break in. If they are willing to ignore potential evidence of a break in, what does that say about their case?

 

[acbytesla]

You're right, but you are taking Raffaele out of his cultural context. Raffaele had been carrying a pocket knife in his pocket since he was about 12. All the boys in his social group did. For him, it was like carrying a keychain. If he was female, it would have been a hairbrush or compact. A tool of sorts. Raffaele was not involved in Meredith's murder; certainly his pocket knife (or kitchen knife) was not the murder weapon. It was obvious a burglar had entered the house and attacked Meredith. Raffaele was not aware he had to sanitize himself. That is an acquired thought process - get a lawyer, don't talk to the police, leave you pocket knife at home. Young innocent people live in a different world that more worldly critical thinkers.

The interesting part of this, is that if Raffaele had actually been involved in Meredith's murder, would he really have been carrying a knife? This goes to show just how neither Raffaele or Amanda thought that they were actually suspects.

 

[Diocletus]

How do you interpret looking for a quick marriage to a stranger to get a visa?The texts are not disputable BTW.

I can't believe the nerve of that guy. He'll do anything to avoid being wrongly imprisoned for 30 years. Jeesh.

 

[Diocletus]

The interesting part of this, is that if Raffaele had actually been involved in Meredith's murder, would he really have been carrying a knife? This goes to show just how neither Raffaele or Amanda thought that they were actually suspects.

You might think that but you would be wrong. He obviously took the knife there because he knew that the cops wouldn't expect him to bring the murder weapon to the police station because that would be crazy ass stupid.

 

[andreajo]

What is BARD?

Obviously, Bongiorno thought there was some hope of Raff and Amanda receiving different verdicts. But yeah, it's gonna require tricky osmotic maneuvering.

Beyond A Reasonable Doubt.

Or she wanted the judges to focus on a fellow Italian who is not hated as much as Amanda is.

 

[Kaosium]

Ladders schmadders. Just go out grab the window sill and fault to the roof. Didn't learn anything as a kid?

Heh, a few years back one of the roofers did something like that when he didn't realize I was watching. Grabbed something, stepped somewhere and :::whoosh::: was on the roof, no ladder anywhere in the vicinity. I went out later looking for any damage he might have done to my precious gutters and didn't see any, ending up pretty impressed with his prowess as I couldn't even figure out for sure how he'd done it. He also left me a wicked-looking knife in my garage he was using to remove shingles or something.

Leaves around my house travel a couple hundred of feet easily during a windy day. I clean out my gutters before big rain if possible, works out great.

My point was that and the other indications someone might have climbed up there ought to cause those who think there were no traces to re-evaluate the odds that the break in was staged, and thus make it more likely that Raffaele and Amanda had nothing to do with it.

At any rate, how much do you think those leaves of yours being blown a couple hundred feet weigh? More or less than 150 picograms?

Doesn't mean one way or another. Muddy footprints would be definite. Having watched the video it is clear that Rudy could climb in leaving very little evidence behind.

I agree.

 

[acbytesla]

You might think that but you would be wrong. He obviously took the knife there because he knew that the cops wouldn't expect him to bring the murder weapon to the police station because that would be crazy ass stupid.

Well then, now I'm really confused. Everyone is reading something into everything and anything. It reminds me of the two contradicting maxims about lawyers.

The first one of course is about "the person who defends himself has a fool for a client". and then of course the other one. "That only the guilty need a lawyer, the innocent can speak for themselves."

No offense Diocletus, but I think the one thing in this case that drives me crazier than all others is people thinking that they understand what everything means. Grinder is doing it now with the knife point. It's easy as hell to think that was the wrong thing to do in hindsight and from the cheap seats, it's another when in the moment.

No offense Diocletus, but I think the one thing in this case that drives me crazier than all others is people thinking that they understand what everything means. Grinder is doing it now with the knife point. It's easy as hell to think that was the wrong thing to do in hindsight and from the cheap seats, it's another when in the moment.

But he isn't the only one, I think we've all been guilty of that to some degree or another about this case including me.

 

[Kaosium]

Well then, now I'm really confused. Everyone is reading something into everything and anything. It reminds me of the two contradicting maxims about lawyers.

The first one of course is about "the person who defends himself has a fool for a client". and then of course the other one. "That only the guilty need a lawyer, the innocent can speak for themselves."

No offense Diocletus, but I think the one thing in this case that drives me crazier than all others is people thinking that they understand what everything means. Grinder is doing it now with the knife point. It's easy as hell to think that was the wrong thing to do in hindsight and from the cheap seats, it's another when in the moment.

No offense Diocletus, but I think the one thing in this case that drives me crazier than all others is people thinking that they understand what everything means. Grinder is doing it now with the knife point. It's easy as hell to think that was the wrong thing to do in hindsight and from the cheap seats, it's another when in the moment.

But he isn't the only one, I think we've all been guilty of that to some degree or another about this case including me.

I'm not certain, but I do believe Diocletus' avatar is Johnathan Swift. If it's not, (everyone in a powdered wig looks pretty much the same to me!) it would have been a good choice.

 

[codyjuneau]

Leaf pics

I didn't know that, Cody! Do you know where pictures of those or documentation to their presence could be found?

.
Found them Kaosium. They were in those zip files that Charlie uploaded a while back (dsc_0078.jpg, dsc_0076.jpg, dsc_0105.jpg). Click the thumbnails to get the highest resolution version that JREF would allow me to upload. The ones in the zip file are the best.

The leaf on the floor:

The leaf is between the bag and the waste paper basket. The clearest view is in the second photo, just under the blue of the chair.





The leaf on the window sill:

This picture shows the leaf on the right side of the window sill.

Besides the leaf, there are a couple of other interesting things in this picture.

One is that the strip of wood that the window normally closes over, has no glass on it. If Massei's version of breaking the window was correct, then I would expect that strip of wood to have broken glass on it just like the wood on either side of the strip. My interpretation is that the window was closed when the rock went through it. The original photo shows this best.

The other interesting thing is that the crumbly stuff under the latch mechanism looks like it may have been jarred loose from the latch hole when the latch was sprung open by the rock hitting the inside shutter. The original photo shows this best.


.

 

[Diocletus]

I'm not certain, but I do believe Diocletus' avatar is Johnathan Swift. If it's not, (everyone in a powdered wig looks pretty much the same to me!) it would have been a good choice.

I like Jonathan Swift, but nope, the avatar is Andrew Hamilton.

 

[Bill Williams]

A great summary of this case.....

http://www.jimsnowden.com/2014/01/20/the-unsinkable-rubber-ducks-of-italy/​

I certainly wouldn’t maintain that the police, prosecutors and judges in this case are ordinary fools. Neither would I think that they’d deliberately railroad innocent people for amusement. Certainly the Italian court system, like Italian society in general, has flaws that Knox and Sollecito’s prosecutors were able to exploit to gain a conviction. But the unwillingness of Italian prosecutors, the Italian Court of Cassation, and their supporters on the Internet to admit they might have been wrong can be traced to more universal flaws in reasoning, which can afflict even able and gifted people.

Reluctance to Seek, or Listen To, Independent Confirmation of Evidence

In the Italian courts this problem appears to be systemic:​

In the Knox case, scientific evidence of her guilt weakens each time it’s examined. (And it was tissue-thin to start with.) Their alleged murder weapon and the bra clasp, the only evidence tying Sollecito to the crime scene, have been discredited. Prosecutors still have Knox’s DNA in the apartment she shared with Kercher and two others, but since there’s no way to determine when that DNA was deposited–people constantly shed DNA in the form of skin cells, skin oils, hair, and sweat–it doesn’t tie her to the scene of the murder at the time of the murder.

Science is supposed to work this way, forever evaluating and reevaluating evidence and coming to increasingly compelling conclusions. This can be a great help in criminal investigations, but only if judges take the scientific method seriously.​

The author also shows the Channel 5 climb demonstration.... then adds this....

Does this mean that Guede didn’t have help getting in? No. It simply means that a third party isn’t necessary to explain how he got in. As for the question of getting out, I’m pretty sure Guede, a sometime burglar, had mastered the art of grabbing a door knob, turning it, and pulling. No third party needed there.

What does this add up to? As I see it, the only person other than Meredith Kercher whose presence is required to explain Kercher’s death and the state of the crime scene is Rudy Guede. Amanda Knox and Raffele Sollecito are completely superfluous. Any attempt to add them to the explanation of this crime adds complications requiring heavy doses of post hoc rationalization to excuse the lack of physical evidence against the couple. These come mostly in the the form of cleanup theories that don’t explain how Knox and Sollecito could have found, much less cleaned up, all of their own DNA, hair, and fiber traces while leaving all of Rudy Guede’s physical traces intact and undisturbed. (Or indeed, why they should have wished to leave Rudy Guede’s traces intact and undisturbed.)​

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

How do you interpret looking for a quick marriage to a stranger to get a visa?The texts are not disputable BTW.

It's called out-numbered and out-gunned. Not a bad move in that context, really.

 

[Kaosium]

.
Found them Kaosium. They were in those zip files that Charlie uploaded a while back (dsc_0078.jpg, dsc_0076.jpg, dsc_0105.jpg). Click the thumbnails to get the highest resolution version that JREF would allow me to upload. The ones in the zip file are the best.

The leaf on the floor:

The leaf is between the bag and the waste paper basket. The clearest view is in the second photo, just under the blue of the chair.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5276152e1c438f402f.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5276152e1c4f505149.jpg[/qimg]

The leaf on the window sill:

This picture shows the leaf on the right side of the window sill.

Besides the leaf, there are a couple of other interesting things in this picture.

One is that the strip of wood that the window normally closes over, has no glass on it. If Massei's version of breaking the window was correct, then I would expect that strip of wood to have broken glass on it just like the wood on either side of the strip. My interpretation is that the window was closed when the rock went through it. The original photo shows this best.

The other interesting thing is that the crumbly stuff under the latch mechanism looks like it may have been jarred loose from the latch hole when the latch was sprung open by the rock hitting the inside shutter. The original photo shows this best.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5276152e1c44c615d3.jpg[/qimg]
.

Thank you very much for digging that up, Cody! In addition to supporting your claim, that one picture shows quite clearly the oddity of the glass piled there on the outer part of the sill. The prosecution theory requires that window to be open (towards in the inside of the room) enough to allow for the chucking of the rock through it from the inside, but impacting the outside side of the glass first. That glass distribution becomes even stranger when that fact is realized.

 

[acbytesla]

.
Found them Kaosium. They were in those zip files that Charlie uploaded a while back (dsc_0078.jpg, dsc_0076.jpg, dsc_0105.jpg). Click the thumbnails to get the highest resolution version that JREF would allow me to upload. The ones in the zip file are the best.

The leaf on the floor:

The leaf is between the bag and the waste paper basket. The clearest view is in the second photo, just under the blue of the chair.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5276152e1c438f402f.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5276152e1c4f505149.jpg[/qimg]

The leaf on the window sill:

This picture shows the leaf on the right side of the window sill.

Besides the leaf, there are a couple of other interesting things in this picture.

One is that the strip of wood that the window normally closes over, has no glass on it. If Massei's version of breaking the window was correct, then I would expect that strip of wood to have broken glass on it just like the wood on either side of the strip. My interpretation is that the window was closed when the rock went through it. The original photo shows this best.

The other interesting thing is that the crumbly stuff under the latch mechanism looks like it may have been jarred loose from the latch hole when the latch was sprung open by the rock hitting the inside shutter. The original photo shows this best.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5276152e1c44c615d3.jpg[/qimg]
.

Great pics Cody, I notice something else about the window sill picture. The sill is absolutely filthy. Totally soiled. How would anyone actually know if someone with a dirty shoe stepped on that dirty sill?

 

[Briars]

Great pics Cody, I notice something else about the window sill picture. The sill is absolutely filthy. Totally soiled. How would anyone actually know if someone with a dirty shoe stepped on that dirty sill?

The white outside wall which his shoes needed to grab onto had no dirt neither did the bars on the lower window. Those are two leaves by the way which look pretty pristine and not stepped on. You are right about the sill looking dirty with debris near the leaves in the corner. probably just old leaf dust flaking paint and bird droppings.You would think if his shoe pressed in that area some of the debris would have tracked into the room