Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #10

[wasnt_me]

The break in was staged

....Feel free to research Italian law ... all the answers are there....

So I guess you have no proof or theory or that either. For the second quote, I guess you have no citation as to the reasons RG's sentence got commuted twice, either.

 

[wasnt_me]

The perugia murder file has this as the type of lock Meredith had on the door. It could be safe to assume all the doors were the same. I don't know.

http://www.fenestration.net/pdf_documents/Catalog_E_SwingDoor.pdf

Page 2 of this PDF tells how to activate it.

If this is indeed the same kind of lock, then RG could have opened FR's room from the inside after throwing the rock, IF FR had indeed locked her door before going away for a few days, as the court says she was so diligently worried about securing a window that no one thinks a burglar would plausibly choose to gain entry through.

My keyboard keys stick a lot. I don't know if you guys can tell that, but I apologize because only in reading back later do I sometimes see that words are wrong because of it.

 

[otto]

Searching italian law on the internet will not tell us that RG's sentence was twice commuted from 30 years down to 24 to match the other suspects, who had seperate trials that were not fast-tracked, and then down again to 16.

Where's the citation for this?

"The appeal court had reduced Guede's sentence to 24 years and cut one-third off as is custom when defendants opt for a fast-track trial, said Francesco Maresca, a lawyer representing Kercher's family, who argued for the original sentence to be left unchanged.

"Twenty-four years would be in line with the sentences given to Knox and Sollecito," he said. "They each got an extra year for simulating a burglary at the scene and Knox got a further year for falsely blaming a local barman for the murder."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/22/rudy-guede-sentence-kercher-murder

Here is the discussion: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6102733&highlight=law#post6102733

 

[otto]

Though I discount this image, I do not understand why they drew that 167ft line when there are closer lines of sight. That's odd.

I drew the 167 ft line as that point corresponds to the vantage point we were discussing: specifically we were discussing the photo taken from the carpark far exit.

 

[otto]

It's true. I chose to remark on it because Otto had said to me before that the other two roomies had lived longer with MK. That just didn't bare out in the evidence.

Selective evidence. Amanda was in Perugia. She rented a room. Then she left. She went to Germany for a couple of weeks. Meredith arrived in Perugia. She rented a room and then stayed in Perugia. Meredith moved in before Amanda. Amanda moved in a couple of weeks later.

 

[wasnt_me]

"The appeal court had reduced Guede's sentence to 24 years and cut one-third off as is custom when defendants opt for a fast-track trial, said Francesco Maresca, a lawyer representing Kercher's family, who argued for the original sentence to be left unchanged.

"Twenty-four years would be in line with the sentences given to Knox and Sollecito," he said. "They each got an extra year for simulating a burglary at the scene and Knox got a further year for falsely blaming a local barman for the murder."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/22/rudy-guede-sentence-kercher-murder

Here is the discussion: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6102733&highlight=law#post6102733

Awesome. That's all we needed.

I'd also like to correct your last statement, because from the reading, they didn't appear to cut the sentence to 24 years to match the other defendents. It seemed like that statement was the lawyer just stating that the reduction now closely matches. Correct me if I'm wrong. This article doesn't state anything about the apology, though, so it's not disproven (yet) that it played a role, as other outlets have reported.

By the way, he didn't sound very sorry at the end of the article.

 

[Nova]

It has been suggested that the wall is not well lit, so I provided a night shot showing that the wall is well lit. It has been suggested that a tree blocks a view of the wall, so I provided a day shot with the tree showing that the tree does not block the view of the wall. It has been suggested that it is easier to see someone climbing up over the downstairs entrance from a distance of 167 even though the downstairs entrance is not visible from that position. Now we have to wonder if the lights from an oncoming car would have prevented someone from seeing a break in at the window?

... not sure how I've failed to address.

The specific post to which you were responding had to do with the slope of the road from both directions and headlights.

A single shot showing a clear view of FR's window from one particular point in the road during the day tells us little to nothing of how protected that window may have felt to someone casing the upstairs apartment. For one thing, a car's headlights don't point to the side, so someone breaking into the window would not be visible to a passing car in that position at night.

The 167 feet is from the exit of the car park to the balcony. As the road continues down the hill, it gets much closer to the balcony. That particular aerial shot with distances marked is just another straw man argument. I can't tell from the aerial shot exactly where the balcony would be visible, but the "167 feet" figure is bogus.

(ETA in a later post, otto mentions that the 167 feet figure corresponds to a standing-person's-eye view, looking toward the cottage. So I apologize for my use of the word "bogus." The figure chosen is not the only possible vantage point, but it was not chosen at random.)

 

[wasnt_me]

I drew the 167 ft line as that point corresponds to the vantage point we were discussing: specifically we were discussing the photo taken from the carpark far exit.

You were discussing that vantage point. I see several others along that road from your line your drew right along the road to the house. Again, an ariel view isn't good because you're looking directly down. we need to view it horizontally as we'd normally view something, rather than if we were in a helicopter, looking down. and we need some distance in the shots to get an idea of what's really all around the place. Close ups don't show enough unless accompanied by wider angles.

 

[otto]

How do you come to that conclusion? Please let us know, step by step how this staging happened.

Gee, I'm pretty sure I've written this about 100 times by now ... but let me do it one more time.

We have clothes on the floor, and a laptop on top of the clothes. Broken glass is on top of the laptop and the clothes. Therefore, the clothes were there before the broken glass fell on top.

Room was ransacked, then the window was broken.

We could go on to talk about all the other details of the broken window again, like the fact that there is no broken glass outside the cottage ... but that would be really boring since we just did that a couple of days ago. We could talk about how we just know that Filomina was a slob who threw her clothes on the floor and left her laptop on those clothes because ... well ... she's a slob and ... well ... we just know ... just cuz ... but "just cuz" isn't really an explanation.

 

[otto]

Oh, Okay. You tell me that there is proof discrediting my theory, but you refuse to present it. I assert you have no proof, then. It's been obvious all along that this is just my theory, my GUESS. You can't prove it wrong, then don't say it's not possible.

If Laura and Filomina's doors were locked when they left the cottage, why were the unlocked when Amanda, Raffaele, Filomina, Filomina's three friends and police arrived at the cottage? Why was it never reported by Filomina and Laura that they locked their doors ... were they messing with people ... or were the doors not locked?

The doors were left unlocked and there is no testimony indicating otherwise.

 

[wasnt_me]

Exactly, and with all that reasonable doubt, one cannot conclusively say the break-in was staged. That, coulpled with all the evidence I discussed to the point of exhaustion about how the break in COULD have been real, brings up enough reasonable doubt to whether AK and RS staged it, especially if all we have to base it on are FR's "maybe I did, maybe I didn't," recollection.

 

[Nova]

It's true. I chose to remark on it because Otto had said to me before that the other two roomies had lived longer with MK. That just didn't bare out in the evidence.

I don't know about otto, so I can't blame him. I don't know where I got the idea, but I definitely put MK in the cottage ahead of AK. My bad.

 

[otto]

Awesome. That's all we needed.

I'd also like to correct your last statement, because from the reading, they didn't appear to cut the sentence to 24 years to match the other defendents. It seemed like that statement was the lawyer just stating that the reduction now closely matches. Correct me if I'm wrong. This article doesn't state anything about the apology, though, so it's not disproven (yet) that it played a role, as other outlets have reported.

By the way, he didn't sound very sorry at the end of the article.

You may want to read through the discussion I linked on this website ... all the points are addressed, including a link to Italian law regarding the 1/3 reduction. That same link is also quickly found by searching google: Italian law.

 

[otto]

You were discussing that vantage point. I see several others along that road from your line your drew right along the road to the house. Again, an ariel view isn't good because you're looking directly down. we need to view it horizontally as we'd normally view something, rather than if we were in a helicopter, looking down. and we need some distance in the shots to get an idea of what's really all around the place. Close ups don't show enough unless accompanied by wider angles.

Go for it! Google earth is free.

 

[wasnt_me]

If Laura and Filomina's doors were locked when they left the cottage, why were the unlocked when Amanda, Raffaele, Filomina, Filomina's three friends and police arrived at the cottage? Why was it never reported by Filomina and Laura that they locked their doors ... were they messing with people ... or were the doors not locked?

The doors were left unlocked and there is no testimony indicating otherwise.

You said there was testimony indicating that they hadn't locked their doors. Where is that?

Laura's door was indeed open, but since RF had MK's keys and RF was the rent collector, maybe she was the "Leader" in the house who had those keys and therefore had Laura's key to open her door.

RF's door is of course opened because her room was broken into through the window. RG opened that when he broke in and came into the house through her room.

I openly admit I have no proof of my theory, just inferences from the crime scene, which I've already stated in detail. But if you can't refute it with fact, it remains a possibility and becomes reasonable doubt.

 

[wasnt_me]

Go for it! Google earth is free.

I don't need to do that. I'm satisfied with photos I've already presented. And to do it like I'd want to do it, I'd ahve to wait until the night of Nov. 1st to do it. Otherwise, I can't be sure what the foliage looked like at that time, and even still now I can't because trees and bushes could ahve been planted or cut down.

 

[Nova]

So I guess you have no proof or theory or that either. For the second quote, I guess you have no citation as to the reasons RG's sentence got commuted twice, either.

I appreciate your frustration, wasn't_me, but there is nothing we are discussing here that otto hasn't discussed--and verified with legitimate citations--a thousand times. When he declines to go and look for a source yet again, I figure he's entitled.

That doesn't mean you and I aren't allowed to disagree or that otto is infallible, but as a rule he knows his stuff, whether or not he has a cite at hand.

I say this with respect for otto, obviously, but as someone who has reached an opposite conclusion re the guilt of AK and RS.

 

[otto]

You said there was testimony indicating that they hadn't locked their doors. Where is that?

Laura's door was indeed open, but since RF had MK's keys and RF was the rent collector, maybe she was the "Leader" in the house who had those keys and therefore had Laura's key to open her door.

RF's door is of course opened because her room was broken into through the window. RG opened that when he broke in and came into the house through her room.

I openly admit I have no proof of my theory, just inferences from the crime scene, which I've already stated in detail. But if you can't refute it with fact, it remains a possibility and becomes reasonable doubt.

Where is your confusion coming from?

1. Filomina arrived at the house and Meredith's door was locked.
2. That door was locked with a key
3. Police wanted to enter that room.
4. NO ONE had a key for the room
5. Filomina insisted that police break down that door.
6. If Filomina had a key, why didn't she use it?

Filomina's bedroom was unlocked

1. Amanda arrived at the cottage and did or did not see the broken glass (depends on whether you believe Amanda or those Amanda spoke to after the murder was discovered)
2. Raffaele arrived at the cottage. Filomina's bedroom was unlocked
3. Filomina arrived at the cottage and was not surprised that her door was unlocked. She did not say that her door was locked and there was no discussion or testimony from her claiming that her door was locked.

Laura's bedroom was unlocked

1. Laura's bedroom was unlocked when everyone arrived at the cottage.
2. Laura has not testified that her door was locked and there has been no suggestion from Laura that she locked her door.

Amanda's bedroom door was unlocked.

1. Again ... no testimony to the contrary.

 

[Nova]

You said there was testimony indicating that they hadn't locked their doors. Where is that?

Laura's door was indeed open, but since RF had MK's keys and RF was the rent collector, maybe she was the "Leader" in the house who had those keys and therefore had Laura's key to open her door.

RF's door is of course opened because her room was broken into through the window. RG opened that when he broke in and came into the house through her room.

I openly admit I have no proof of my theory, just inferences from the crime scene, which I've already stated in detail. But if you can't refute it with fact, it remains a possibility and becomes reasonable doubt.

But if Filomena had Laura's keys, why didn't she have MK's keys?

We have ample record that a debate was held as to whether to break down MK's door. if other doors in the house were locked, we should have some record of a discussion about breaking them down as well; we have no record of any such discussion.

So while I can't say with 100% certainty, I am convinced that MK's was the only door in the apartment that was locked from the inside.

 

[wasnt_me]

I appreciate your frustration, wasn't_me, but there is nothing we are discussing here that otto hasn't discussed--and verified with legitimate citations--a thousand times. When he declines to go and look for a source yet again, I figure he's entitled.

That doesn't mean you and I aren't allowed to disagree or that otto is infallible, but as a rule he knows his stuff, whether or not he has a cite at hand.

I say this with respect for otto, obviously, but as someone who has reached an opposite conclusion re the guilt of AK and RS.

I respectfully hear you and disagree, because he asks us to cite stuff and prove stuff. If he knew all the facts, we wouldn't have to keep repeating the same things to him. And the idea that he knows everything is flawed, because he doesn't know that AK and RS killed MK. That's for certain.

I respectfully apologize if this post offends anyone, but I believe the very nature of thinking anyone knows everything is the very reason these people got convicted.