Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #10

[SMK]

I think the jury excluded the possibility of Rudy carrying a rock up the wall because he needed his hands to hold onto something (not sure what) while attaching himself to the flat, vertical wall. He couldn't have climbed the wall with the 9 pound rock in hand. To suggest he put the rock in a backpack, and smashed that pack into the window would also require some interesting manoeuvring ... risky in the sense that he would need both hands and feet to cling to the wall. Even if he did use the pack to break the window, glass would fall to the ground below. This seems obvious because in smashing the glass with the pack, some glass would attach to the pack and the pack would be put back on his shoulder ... thus giving a high probability that some glass would fall to the ground. Furthermore, gravity would cause glass to fall on the outer window ledge. In order to hoist himself in through the window, at least some glass would fall onto the ground below.

It seems that most people agree that some glass should have fallen on the ground below, so the explanation for the absence of glass is to accuse police of not properly investigating the ground below the window. According to the jury, the ground below the window was investigated, and there was no evidence of broken glass (they did find a dinner knife that was not connected to the murder), or of anyone having stood on the damp ground. Furthermore, since the ground was damp, anyone that walked along that narrow path beside the house would have had some dirt, leaves, or grass on their shoes. There was no evidence in Filomina's bedroom of any debris from the ground outside the window.

There were many reasons for ruling the break in staged, and that presented a very serious problem for Amanda and Raffaele.

OK, well no evidence of anyone having stood on the damp ground is iffy, because after many hours there would not be any. Yes, though, I see your refuting points....

 

[SMK]

:waitasec:On second thought, why is it that breaking a window with a rock from the inside would not send any glass outside?

 

[otto]

OK, well no evidence of anyone having stood on the damp ground is iffy, because after many hours there would not be any. Yes, though, I see your refuting points....

It had rained a day or so earlier (through the night) and it was confirmed that the ground would have been damp at the time of the murder. Something from the dirt below (grass, leaves, something) would have been on the shoes of someone that was there. Some trace of dirt from the ground should have been on the window ledge or on the floor of the bedroom. There was simply nothing to prove that someone stood on the ground outside the window and then walked in the bedroom. Also, there was too much glass on the ledge to say that someone crawled in throuh the window and not one shard of glass was pushed to the ground below.

We have the photo of someone standing on the window grill to the right of Filomina's window. The window is at head height. Someone climbing in that window would have used his arms to pull himself in, as the window was too high to simply put a foot on the ledge. He would have needed to hold his hands inside the window, and pull his body in ... undoubtedly pulling his body along the broken glass on the outside window ledge. We should have at least one cut or some blood, a cleaned off window ledge, or some glass on the ground below the window. There is absolutely nothing to support the argument that someone entered through the window ... except a broken window ... which is why the jury, no matter how they looked at it, unanimously agreed that the break in was staged.

 

[otto]

:waitasec:On second thought, why is it that breaking a window with a rock from the inside would not send any glass outside?

The outside shutters were closed when the window was broken. That's why the glass is neatly arranged on the outside window ledge, and none on the ground below.

I think it seems rather obvious that if someone broke a window and was going to climb in through that window, he would have swept the glass off the outer window ledge to avoid getting cut. This is why the absence of glass on the ground below seems strange. This is also why so many try to argue that the reason glass was not discovered on the ground below is because police simply didn't look for it. Since the staged break in is a crucial piece of evidence, and we have seen photos of investigators in white suits photographing and measuring outside the cottage, it's unbelievable that police wanted to argue staged break in but didn't investigate. Furthermore, if they didn't investigate, how did they find the dinner knife on the ground below the window?

 

[SMK]

The outside shutters were closed when the window was broken. That's why the glass is neatly arranged on the outside window ledge, and none on the ground below.

I think it seems rather obvious that if someone broke a window and was going to climb in through that window, he would have swept the glass off the outer window ledge to avoid getting cut. This is why the absence of glass on the ground below seems strange. This is also why so many try to argue that the reason glass was not discovered on the ground below is because police simply didn't look for it. Since the staged break in is a crucial piece of evidence, and we have seen photos of investigators in white suits photographing and measuring outside the cottage, it's unbelievable that police wanted to argue staged break in but didn't investigate. Furthermore, if they didn't investigate, how did they find the dinner knife on the ground below the window?

I assume LE checked outside, they would be dolts not to...It is hard to envision someone breaking a window with the shutters closed. Wouldn't they be afraid they might dent the inside of the shutters, thus giving themselves away? I have read about many staged crime scenes, and they are usually quite simple: A coffee table turned on its side, but police show that if pushed over, it would have landed differently, etc....this case is a fog within a fog....:waitasec:

 

[Nova]

I am sure Salem understands that that was just a joke

I'm sorry, sherlockh. I thought our exchange of emoticons made that obvious. My bad.

 

[SMK]

I like his critique of pp 77-86 of the Motivation Report by Massei:

AMANDA'S ALIBI & THE WITNESSES
Pages 77-86 of the English translation goes into why the judges believe Amanda does not have a credible alibi and was actually telling lies about her whereabouts the evening of November 1st (night of the murder). The lack of critical thinking and speculation by the judges continues:

The judges start by giving Amanda's account, which is that she and Raffaele did not leave his apartment that night and did not leave until the following morning in which Amanda states she did not get up until about 10am and which shortly after 10am she went to her own house to shower and change her clothes.
The judges use the testimony of several witnesses and computer and phone records- and a lot of single minded speculation- to 'prove' their findings.
Witness Antonio Curatolo- a homeless 52 year old man- the judges believe is credible. The report states that he stated he saw the two defendants at the park in front of the University of Foreigners from about 9:30pm till about 11pm on the night of the murder. He was reading a magazine and happened to look up and says he saw Amanda and Raffaele in the park, and he continued reading but would occasionally look up and they would still be there- up until about 10:45 to 11:30 (I guess the judges allowed a short range in the time as maybe park bums don't have a watch). So, the judges, while using this testimony to shoot holes in the fact that Amanda stated they did not leave the house that night, the judges seem to overlook the fact that it was in the time frame they were observed in the park that they were suppose to be at Amanda's killing Meredith. The time of death of Meredith has been placed between 9-11pm, with the time of 10-11pm the most agreed upon estimate. Enough said about this witness.

Marco Quintavalle- store owner who claimed to see Amanda at his store the morning after the murder. The judges state they believe his testimony is credible. Marco claimed to have seen Amanda waiting for him to open his store at 7:45am (remember she said she didn't get up that morning until about 10am). Well I too might have found his testimony credible if it wasn't for the fact that he did not say anything to the police who questioned him some days after the murder, but comes forward a year later after he was persuaded to by a newspaper reporter. The judges do not seem to have a problem with that. Maybe it's just me.

Phone calls and the computer
Now Amanda had stated that when she got up around 10am, Raffaele was still in bed and that they slept through the night. However to prove Amanda a liar the judges state that Raffaele actually turned his computer on a little before 6am and turned his cell phone on about the same time. Since no one had school that day and did not have to be up that early it sounds like he got up and then went back to bed. Has anyone ever gotten up early on a day off and gone back to bed shortly after? Besides- Raffaele's father called him at 9:30 that morning and stated he sounded like he was still in bed. It sounds to me like he was probably sleeping at 10am like Amanda said- According to his father he was half asleep at 9:30am. I guess the judges didn't think about a person waking up early and then going back to bed on your day off- I wonder why?

Now the report continues with a heading that reads: Amanda's Significant Inconsistencies:
The major point the judges hash out on this particular topic is that Amanda states she went home shortly after she got up that morning for the purpose of taking a shower and changing her clothes. The judges state in the report: "The reason given by Amanda Knox for which she would return to the house in Via della Pergola 7... does not appear credible". The major reason they give for not finding it credible is, and I quote "that she had already showered and washed her hair the night before at Raffaele's house, and therefore hardly credible that she needed to repeat both these actions". Now that statement by the judges is just plain.... incredible. Who does not take a shower the next morning after having sex the night before??? And then the judges state she could have very well taken her clothes with her to Raffaele's and then there would be not need to go home to change. Well let me take a wild guess- how about most women like to have all their stuff around them- make-up included.
This whole subject brought up by the judges with their reasoning is clearly unfair and unfounded by any logic- it even defies common sense. And due to this reasoning the judges believe Amanda Knox has no credible alibi and is a liar. What I find incredible is the entire motivation report written by these judges.
I am not trying to be rude or disrespectful to these Italian judges but one does have to state the facts- This report is the thinking that put Amanda Knox in prison with a sentence of 26 years. The truth about this case is long overdue.http://amandaknoxappealforum.blogspot.com/p/motivation-report-in-focus.html

 

[otto]

I assume LE checked outside, they would be dolts not to...It is hard to envision someone breaking a window with the shutters closed. Wouldn't they be afraid they might dent the inside of the shutters, thus giving themselves away? I have read about many staged crime scenes, and they are usually quite simple: A coffee table turned on its side, but police show that if pushed over, it would have landed differently, etc....this case is a fog within a fog....:waitasec:

Keeping the outside shutters closed would muffle some of the sound. Also, the window is visible from the street, so keeping the outside shutters closed would prevent someone walking along the street from seeing what was going on. I think the theory is that the inside shutter was completely opened (so it would be against the wardrobe). The window was opened and a rock thrown at the window to break it (that might explain the dent on the wood of the inside shutter). A 9 pound rock thrown with force and some distance might have done more damage than a little dent on the paint.

This explains glass inside the room below the window. The window was then closed, causing more glass to fall down and land on the window ledge. The outside shutters were then pushd open (since they were held closed using a friction fit - swollen wood due to wear and weathering). This would have been one of the last things that was done in the cottage before they pair thought they had completely staged the scene to suggest the break in ... cleaning, locking bedroom doors and so on would have already been done.


This is the best I can figure out about how it happened, but we are really in the realm of speculations on this. We have little more than a couple of blurry images to rely on ... but the courts had access to eye witnesses, clear photos, and much more information that we do.

 

[Nova]

Yet MK was a sweet person, and if she had seen Rudy downstairs, might consider him a "friend" of her new boyfriend, or certainly someone known to "the boys downstairs". If he asked to use the bathroom, she may have considered it a collegey friendly thing to do.

I agree. I think it's a leap to assume there were no circumstances under which MK would open the door to RG.

 

[jjenny]

I agree that this is what most likely happened.... she did not know how to deal with what she saw, went into a state of metal overload putting off how to deal with it, and then she got caught up it in all. If she were guilty, I think she would have fled.

I've yet to hear of a case where shock led an innocent person into staging a crime scene. By all accounts, AK is a person with normal mental capabilities, and MK wasn't someone she was very close to-just a roommate with whom she supposedly didn't even get along all that well. I fail to see why AK would have gone into shock all of the sudden and started altering the crime scene if she simply discovered the body but had nothing to do with the murder.

 

[otto]

SMK, the alibis provided by Amanda and Raffaele are that they were together and that they stayed in, watched a movie, had a late dinner (as late as 11), had a water leak, showered and slept. Computer and telephone evidence placed the movie, dinner and water leak prior to 8:40 PM. They also said that they slept until 10 AM, but computer and phone activity proves that Raffaele was up at 6, turned on the computer, listened to some music. The phone records showed an incoming message from his father shortly before 6 AM.

Even if we exclude the testimony from the heroin addict and the shop keeper, there are still problems with the alibis. When questioned on this, Amanda and Raffaele's alibis fell apart. Raffaele did not clarify and state that in fact he got up at 6 AM ... that was for police to figure out ... or that dinner occurred before Raffaele spoke to his father (and before the suitcase event) ... that was also for police to figure out. Even though Raffaele's father placed dinner and the water leak before 8:40, Amanda and Raffaele could not explain what they did that evening. The only thing that could not be proven to occur at any particular time was the shower. We are left with the alibi that between 8:40 and 10 AM, Amanda and Raffaele had a shower ... and slept. Then we have Amanda needing another shower, but this time at home ... even though they had plans to attend a festival in Gubbio that day.

Amanda and Raffaele, to this day, do not have an alibi or reasonable explanation for what they did between 8:40 PM and 10 AM from Nov 1-2.

 

[jjenny]

I agree. I think it's a leap to assume there were no circumstances under which MK would open the door to RG.

Well if she opened the door to him why is the window broken? People who believe AK is innocent argue Rudy broke through the window, so if MK opened the door to him, why is the window broken?

 

[otto]

I agree. I think it's a leap to assume there were no circumstances under which MK would open the door to RG.

Meredith was tired from the night before, and told friends that she wanted an early night to do some studying. She had borrowed a text book for an exam and had to return it the following morning at 10 AM ... so she needed her time to study and rest. I find it highly unlikely that she would blow that off and invite Rudy in for a visit ... and that's also what the courts concluded. Furthermore, she was alone in the cottage. It was late, dark and she wasn't expecting anyone. The only way that Rudy would have entered the front door with Meredith home alone is if she opened the door, he force his way in and attacked her at the front door. There is no evidence that the attack started at the front door ... so again ... it's unlikely that Meredith invited Rudy to visit.

 

[SMK]

I've yet to hear of a case where shock led an innocent person into staging a crime scene. By all accounts, AK is a person with normal mental capabilities, and MK wasn't someone she was very close to-just a roommate with whom she supposedly didn't even get along all that well. I fail to see why AK would have gone into shock all of the sudden and started altering the crime scene if she simply discovered the body but had nothing to do with the murder.

Yes, in my assumption, she would have had to feel at least indirectly responsible, as in having suggested to Guede that he go into the empty cottage to get $$$. Of course this is just conjecture.

 

[SMK]

Well if she opened the door to him why is the window broken? People who believe AK is innocent argue Rudy broke through the window, so if MK opened the door to him, why is the window broken?

Good question, unless a staging did occur by him or the others to make it seem random, the work of a complete stranger.

 

[SMK]

Meredith was tired from the night before, and told friends that she wanted an early night to do some studying. She had borrowed a text book for an exam and had to return it the following morning at 10 AM ... so she needed her time to study and rest. I find it highly unlikely that she would blow that off and invite Rudy in for a visit ... and that's also what the courts concluded. Furthermore, she was alone in the cottage. It was late, dark and she wasn't expecting anyone. The only way that Rudy would have entered the front door with Meredith home alone is if she opened the door, he force his way in and attacked her at the front door. There is no evidence that the attack started at the front door ... so again ... it's unlikely that Meredith invited Rudy to visit.

Well, I can picture Meredith tired, needing to read her college book, and hearing a knock on the door, and Rudy apologizing, saying the guys downstairs are away, can I just use your bathroom? She would have been sweet enough to say sure, but I am in the middle of studying....expecting him to be gone within a few minutes...

 

[otto]

Well, I can picture Meredith tired, needing to read her college book, and hearing a knock on the door, and Rudy apologizing, saying the guys downstairs are away, can I just use your bathroom? She would have been sweet enough to say sure, but I am in the middle of studying....expecting him to be gone within a few minutes...

I doubt it. Amanda may be the sort of person that arrives home to find the front door wide open, and then leave the door open and take a shower, but Europe was not a big strange place for Meredith. She would have had enough common sense to know that it was unwise to open the door to an unknown person at night when she was alone.

Also, as Jenny points out ... Rudy had no reason to stage a break in. If he entered through the front door, why the broken window. The only person that had a reason to stage a break in is Amanda.

 

[SMK]

I doubt it. Amanda may be the sort of person that arrives home to find the front door wide open, and then leave the door open and take a shower, but Europe was not a big strange place for Meredith. She would have had enough common sense to know that it was unwise to open the door to an unknown person at night when she was alone.

If she connected him with the boys downstairs, within the University atmosphere, she would not have seen him as a stranger. She might have even thought he himself went to college, if she had seen him downstairs, or if he mentioned the names of the boys she knew, saying, "I wanted to see ________but they aren't home, can I quickly use the bathroom?"

 

[jjenny]

Yea, exactly. Why would Rudy be staging break ins? If MK let him in, why would he break an window? He has no reason whatsoever to stage a break in as far as I can tell.

 

[jjenny]

If she connected him with the boys downstairs, within the University atmosphere, she would not have seen him as a stranger. She might have even thought he himself went to college, if she had seen him downstairs, or if he mentioned the names of the boys she knew, saying, "I wanted to see ________but they aren't home, can I quickly use the bathroom?"

So why is the window broken?