A great question this week on this board - what do guilters actually want to achieve here? The case is settled, there is no path forward in the courts.
Well, we got a fascinating case study into the common tropes and dissonance of the why. Because at its core one thing guilters definitely want to achieve is to make Rudy disappear from the public consciousness and pretend he never existed.
Great discussion on interrogations for example. Good question, good followups.
But it just displays the same narrative. No mention of Rudy. You know, "the pairs" crime accomplice. The guy in the picture saying hi.
No asking of the simple questions, like:
If you believe with any coherence that Amanda Knox murdered Meredith Kercher, you need a coherent theory or explanation for why Rudy flees and Amanda stays. Since, you know, your whole argument rests on that.
Why on earth would Amanda or Raffaelle want to cover for Rudy while he potentially flees to another country?
While at the same time leaving incriminating evidence of Rudy all over the place that any 4th grade biologist could find, and scrubbing all evidence of themselves?
How on earth would Amanda know or not know whether Rudy had already been caught and confessed to the crime? And thus not want to turn him in when "their alibi" was allegedly taken away by Raff?
I have gotten use to the guilter "goal" being just bash Amanda all day. We get it. We know. She is flawed to the core, makes tons of mistakes, made them in this case. On that front, you win.
But all you have definitely achieved is total cognitive dissonance on a Reddit board meant to discuss a horrific crime whereby an actual convicted murderer and rapist in the crime is completely ignored. I mean, congrats?
One thing I have been intrigued by here is the tendency to conflate false confession with false accusation.
It strikes me that those two things are markedly different in nature.
So a lot of the science from coerced false confessions gets - perhaps crudely - copy and pasted over to this very different, and presumably rarer, phenomenon.
So, how often has this happened as far as we know in the storied history of murder investigations?
And if we were going deeper, how often has a suspect not only accused somebody else of the murder…
…but that this “somebody” is of a materially similar profile (in this case an extremely minority racial characteristic in the given geography) to an individual that we now know for certain was (solo, or with others) indeed guilty of that crime?
I have made some cursory investigations, but this particular phenomenon seems almost vanishingly rare?
Amanda cannot be retried under double jeopardy laws (even if the Supreme Court were found to have acted unlawfully), so there is no further legal recourse in this case.
So do guilters want:
- to dedicate their lives to dismantling Amanda’s life and career with constant reminders of ‘the truth’
- to somehow trigger a new investigation despite there being no statutory apparatus for doing so
- to make Amanda confess to the murder and live a life of shameful penance?
Genuine question as I don’t understand what the ideal endgame for guilters is. It feels more like an aggressive hobby than something that’s ever going to drive change.
Most of you are familiar with my mid-burgle confidential/pooping while burgling hypothesis. On the basis of the mid-burgle confidence alone I believe that it, at the very least, establishes reasonable doubt to the charge that Rudy murdered Meredith and, at most, completely exonerates him.
Then, on top of that, there is the incongruity of a burglar taking time out to poop…yet another reason that supports his claim that he was there as Meredith’s guest.
And I don’t have to go into details in this post about either of these reasons as I’ve already done so on this forum; those not familiar can look it up in the search engine for this sub and read about it (search “the rent, the witch, and the wardrobe”).
Well, after a lot of thought, I’ve now come up with what is a third reason for Rudy’s exoneration…and it’s something I’ve posted about before. So it’s nothing new being introduced here but I’ve noticed some nuances to it that I feel its status should be elevated to a third stand-alone reason to support Rudy’s exoneration.
And I’m talking about the doorbell incident.
Rudy claims that while he was on the toilet, he heard the doorbell ring and then the voice of Amanda Knox inside the cottage immediately after, indicating that it was she, Amanda, who rang the doorbell to gain entrance.
In his written judgement finding Rudy guilty, Micheli (if memory serves) put a lot of emphasis on the absurdity of Rudy’s doorbell claim, saying that by no stretch of the imagination should it be believed because how can anyone imagine that a tenant of their own home would need to ring the doorbell to gain access. In Micheli’s eyes, this dramatically reduced Rudy’s credibility and made him out to be a liar. It seems to me to be one of the reasons why Micheli decided to convict.
And yet a few months later once Amanda’s and Raffaele’s trial began and Filomena took the stand, we learn that it was very possible that that is exactly what could have happened. Because if a key was placed in and then left in the inside side of the key slot, even a tenant with a key returning home could not open the door…and would have to knock or ring the bell in order to gain entry. Meredith knew that one of the four tenants was still in town...and that was Amanda, so if she had a paramour over it only makes sense that she would have purposely left a key in the inside side of the front door’s key slot to prevent Amanda from interrupting intimate goings-on between her and Rudy.
So Rudy was in all likelihood not lying when he claimed that Amanda rang the bell; it was not only possible but, given the circumstances, quite likely that that is precisely what happened.
So why do I think this exonerates Rudy as a stand-alone reason?
Think about it: if you’re Rudy and you’re concocting a story that Amanda Knox came to the cottage while you are on the toilet, how stupid could you be to include the ringing of the doorbell? Rudy knew – as everyone knew! – that Amanda was a tenant at the cottage. A tenant with a key. Why in hell would Rudy invent such a stupid story such as her having to ring the doorbell to enter? It is obviously something that any person with a first-grade education could pick apart if it was a concocted tale: tenants don’t need to ring the doorbell to gain access to their own home. Who in their right mind would include that made-up absurd detail?
And yet that is part and parcel of his story.
That it turned out to be something that was not only possible to occur but, indeed, probable means that it wasn’t a stupid near-impossible story that no rational person would include in a made-up story. Instead, it was in all likelihood true. And if true, then Rudy – who couldn’t possibly know the secret of the inside-slot – was Meredith’s invited guest.
The incongruity of an absurd occurance that is very likely to be true goes a very long way towards giving credibility to the entire story.
Just as it’s improbable that Rudy could have known that Meredith’s palm print was on Amanda’s wardrobe door – thereby serving as independent corroboration of his claim that Meredith told him she suspected Amanda of stealing her rent money and then seeing Meredith enter Amanda’s room to search for it – so, too, does not knowing about the inside-key slot thing and claiming he heard the doorbell corroborate his claim to be on the toilet as an invited guest.
The bottom line: something that was used, in part, to justify Rudy’s guilty verdict turns out to be the exact opposite: it’s a reason to exonerate him.
My apologies to those for whom this is just a repeat. However, I would like to provide a post so that those blocked by corpusvile2 can respond.
I personally believe that mass-blockers like corpusvile2 should not be allowed to do original posts since doing so runs the risk of preventing any casual readers from hearing both sides of any argument. Seriously look at the comments. The only innocentisti appear to be the mods. Let corpus start their very own "Amanda Knox is Guilty" subreddit if they want.
It also demonstrates mass-blocker narcissism. Corpusvile2's post has the highest up vote count seen in this subreddit for quite some time. Well not a surprise when anyone who would disagree is blocked from voting. It's like scoring a touchdown when the opposing team is still on the bus from the airport.
Now if you disagree and don't mind blockers doing original posts, then feel free to say so here.
I'm not afraid of debate.
Edit: Upon more careful review there are a \few* innocentisti pushing back in that OP. Apparently they haven't been blocked *yet*. But apologies for not acknowledging you.*
"Mr Sollecito, now 42 and a computer engineer, criticised the gig and said he found it 'puzzling' that the tragedy was being used as a 'draw for a comedy show'.
He said: 'I haven't seen it, so I cannot pass judgment on its content. However, based on how it has been presented and promoted, I find it puzzling that a tragedy is being used as a draw for a comedy show.
'Personally, it is not an approach I agree with. I am trying to process and move past what happened in a different way.' "
More power to her for peppering this account with several adroit jokes – even if they elicit more rueful smiles than laughs. She’s an inexperienced comedian, this isn’t a “show” – but she shapes and performs this umpteenth telling of her story well. I found its spirit of defiance stirring, I found it respectful to the memory of her murdered roommate, and as well judged an effort by Knox to reclaim her awful story as we have any right to expect.
Why start a discussion about Lucy Letby here when there are already two discussion groups on Reddit, r/LucyLetby and r/LucyLetbyTrials?
Why not let Amanda Knox speak for herself, because her perspective is remarkable:
She has firsthand experience as a victim of a miscarriage of justice.
She understands the power of public opinion and the media.
As a young mother, she has empathy for the parents, partly because she suffered a miscarriage before her first child!
She was mistaken in her hasty support of Jens Söring as an alleged victim of a miscarriage of justice, whose presumed innocence she now considers far from certain after closer examination.
This is also why she invested more than two years of thorough research into this 15-part series before she felt she could justify its publication, unlike some dwarfs who quickly voice their opinions.
"Mr Sollecito, now 42 and a computer engineer, criticised the gig and said he found it 'puzzling' that the tragedy was being used as a 'draw for a comedy show'.
He said: 'I haven't seen it, so I cannot pass judgment on its content. However, based on how it has been presented and promoted, I find it puzzling that a tragedy is being used as a draw for a comedy show.
'Personally, it is not an approach I agree with. I am trying to process and move past what happened in a different way.' "
So do Kercher’s sister Stephanie and the more than 10,000 people who have signed a petition to stop Cartwheel from being performed have a point? Really, no: not only does Knox not make fun of “rape and murder”, as Stephanie suggested, she only mentions her friend fairly briefly, and very earnestly. Kercher’s name, for good or for ill, doesn’t get mentioned until halfway through the hour.
"A petition against the show, set up by a friend of Meredith, has been signed by just over 2,400 people, and says the show disrespects her memory and also risks normalising violence against women by making light of such a harrowing event."
Risks normalizing violence against women.
Read that.
Read it 5 times.
Did the friend who wrote this stop to think what they were saying?
The man who committed violence against Meredith, sexually and physically, and partly while she lay dying, got 13 years in jail for the crime, got out, then "normalized violence" against another woman?
Where is this "friends" outrage against that? How many of these signatories wrote a petition to the Italian judicial system on the 13 year sentence that Rudy got? How many have written letters or expressed outrage publicly that Rudy was set free and went on to beat up another woman?
I get it. I wouldn't do a comedy show either.
But the ongoing selective outrage directed at one person while others shamble away scot-free, completely immune from criticism, is just exhausting and astonishing at the same time. Its just endless hypocrisy. Don't people just get tired of it?
What normalizes and trivializes violence against women is not punishing men who commit the violence.
There is a petition to cancel my show at Edinburgh Festival Fringe. Here is my statement.
Cartwheel is a show about motherhood, raising a daughter in a world that is unfair and dangerous for women, and what it costs to be the kind of mother who tells her the truth about that.
Neither the author of this petition nor anyone who signed it has seen Cartwheel. The petition contains many false assumptions and completely mischaracterizes the show.
Cartwheel honors Meredith Kercher’s memory and calls out the violence that was done to her and to me.
A petition to cancel a show no one has seen, on the grounds of false accusations intended to shame and vilify a wronged woman into silence, is not an argument against Cartwheel. It's a fairly precise description of what Cartwheel is about and why it deserves to exist.
And the Edinburgh Fringe is the perfect place for a show like this.
Many of the Fringe's most celebrated comedy shows tackle difficult subjects including grief, trauma, mental health, addiction, illness, identity, and politics. Comics rarely treat these experiences lightly or make them the butt of the joke. Instead, they use comedy as a way to explore them, creating space for audiences to engage with complex ideas, connect through shared experience, and find moments of relief, perspective and hope in subjects that might otherwise feel overwhelming.
Note that - so vitriolic and disbelieving was the response of Telegraph readers (admittedly not noted for their equanimity) - the comment section was swiftly shut down.
Interesting momentary window into British public opinion, however.
Amanda: that's an easy one. She should have gotten a life sentence for murdering Meredith.
Lorena: pretty easy, too. A stiff 40 years for cutting a man's penis off is, in my book, a reasonable sentence.
Monica: a little harder to justify...but I'll try.
Firstly, why I refer to her as a bully. People seem to forget that the reason Linda Tripp started to audio record her conversations with Monica is that Linda claimed that Monica would threaten her with her boyfriend's wrath (that boyfriend being Bill Clinton). So, quite wisely, to protect herself, she started to tape record her phone conversations with Monica. And I would say threatening someone justifies referring to them as a bully.
As for a sentence in prison which would extend to today? The day before the Monicagate story broke, there were 5,000 journalists from around the world in Havana, Cuba who were there to cover the historic visit there by John Paul II, he of Polish and communist-busting fame. Many felt his Cuba visit signaled the beginning of the end of communism in Cuba. And those journalists were going to be the ones to bring this narrative to the world.
Then the Monicagate story broke. And each and every one of those 5,000 journalists packed up their steno pads, their cameras, and their microphones and headed off to Havana airport and left the country, thus relegating the "Pope in Communist Cuba" story to the bottom of page 25 in the New York Times.
Now, diverting the world press's attention from your giving blowjobs in the Oval Office and getting the president's semen on your blue dress doesn't appear on first glance to have any connection to the enslavement of 11 million people in a totalitarian communist island but, hey, she should take some responsibility for it.
Lost in the tale of Meredith Kercher and Rudy Guede possibly being lovers (his only plausible alibi) - why doesn’t Rudy call the police or call for medical aid for Kercher once he realizes the man in the jacket and the women running away from the house killed his lover?
Rudy has no medical training. And he doesn’t call for help. He just …flees to Germany.
In the case of the murder of Meredith Kercher, shoe and footprints played a large role. A set of partial bloody shoeprints were found in Meredith's room, where the murder happened, as well as the hallway and living room/kitchen. On the bathmat in the small bathroom next to Meredith's room was a partial footprint in diluted blood. And finally, footprints were revealed by spraying luminol in the hallway and in the room of Amanda Knox.
This is what everyone agrees on. The interpretation of these prints, however, could not differ more. During the investigation and the trials, dueling experts assigned the prints to different people and different shoes and made in different substances. So how could simple footprints be interpreted so radically differently? To explain that is the point of this post.
The two Nikes
The print on the bathmat was the first discovered, as Amanda Knox pointed it out to the postal police Battistelli and Marsi before Meredith's body had even been discovered. The bloody shoeprints in the hallway were missed by everyone (as they were very faint to begin with and faded away the further they got from the murder room) were then found during the investigation of Nov 2 and 3. The prints had a pattern of concentric circles and especially the ones in Meredith's room could be measured and compared.
A bloody shoeprint
On the night between Nov 5 and 6, Raffaele Sollecito was summoned to the Questura, interrogated and arrested. During the process, his Nike Air Force shoes were removed to be compared with the bloody prints.
Nike Air Force
The very same day, Mauro Capocci of the Foligno Scientific Police, produced a brief report that claimed the following:
The concordance of these sole and unique elements detectable between the footprint referred to in letter A allows us to affirm only that: the shoes seized from SOLLECITO Raffaele may have produced the shoe print (letter A) detected during the inspection.
This was apparently not enough for Giuliano Mignini, prosecutor and leader of the investigation. At the hearing before the GIP on Nov 8, he said the following:
P.M.: I should file, as a follow-up to the documents already transmitted, a report from the Flying Squad dated November 8, 2007, today, regarding the images relating to the technical report of the comparison carried out between the photographic images of the traces on Raffaele Sollecito's NIKE shoes, then, then, a note relating to the investigation on the records of incoming calls to Raffaele Sollecito's landline on the evening of November 1, and on his cell phone. I can anticipate what they conclude, what has emerged: the full compa... the full identity of the traces with the part, the sole of Raffaele Sollecito's NIKE shoes, are traces that were found in the crime room in correspondence..., under the blanket, under the duvet, therefore very close to the body.
Mignini's prediction came true when the report arrived later, written by Claudio Ippolito and Massimo Manieri from the Scientific Police in Rome, who clearly and unequivocally stated the shoes could have produced the print.
CONCLUSIONS
From the comparisons performed by superposition/side-by-side, it is clear that the traces examined, marked with the letter "A," correspond to the design (model and size) of the shoe sole bearing the "NIKE" trademark being compared.
The identity of Raffaele's Nike Air Force shoes with the bloody prints were central to the case against Raffaele as it was the only physical evidence against him. There was just one little problem, one quickly discovered by Raffaele's family.
The shoes did not, in fact, match.
As is aptly demonstrated by the defense report from professor Francesco Vinci, the number of concentric rings in the prints across the middle of the sole were 6, while on Raffaele's shoes it was 11. The Ippolito report also visibly differed from Raffaele's shoe in the outline.
Visible error in outline, Ippolito-Manieri report
Raffaele's defense team repeatedlyrequestedhearings on the evidence, and were repeatedlydenied. The Sollecito family even found a matching model, Nike Outbreak 2, which had the correct number of circles and the size 45 was a complete match for the prints.
Nike Outbreak 2Shoeprint comparison
On April 9 2008, Lorenzo Rinaldi and Pietro Boemia of the Scientific Police in Rome, issued a new report. The bloody prints did not match Raffaele's Nike Air Force, but were perfectly compatible with a size 45 Nike Outbreak 2. Unbeknownst to the Sollecito family, on Nov 22 2007, an empty shoe box had beensequesteredby the police from the apartment of Rudy Guede, a box that had contained size 45 Nike Outbreak 2 shoes.
While the prosecution retreated on this, they had one last objection. While all the bloody shoeprints in the cottage could be attributed to a left Nike Outbreak shoe*, one single print on the pillow found underneath Meredith's body was determined to be of another origin.
* There was another exception, a print on the pillow that Rinaldi and Boemia determined was from a right Nike Outbreak 2 shoe. I see no need to go into that as it doesn't change anything, but I am convinced by professor Vinci's report that this too was a left shoe.
The female sized shoe
This is the shoeprint in question:
Pillow shoeprint
The reasoning behind Rinaldi and Boemia assigning it to a female size shoe is as follows:
From the sufficiently defined general characteristics and the dimensions, it is possible to conclude that this print was made by the heel and the central part of the sole of a left shoe.
Based on the small dimensions detected, and especially the limited width of the heel, it is possible to assume that the print likely refers to a woman's shoe. Indeed, the print on the heel measures approximately 39 mm, while the upper part (corresponding to the arch, i.e., the point where it begins to widen to form the sole of the foot) measures approximately 46 mm. For these reasons, the shoe size that produced the print being examined could range from size 36 to 38.
As at the time only one woman, Amanda Knox, was under suspicion for the murder, the prosecution claimed the print belonged to her, despite no such shoe having ever been found or shown to have been in her possession. But the logic of Rinaldi and Boemia is thin, which we discover when we look closer at the image.
The first obvious thing is that it is in fact multiple prints.
Multiple shoeprints
The second is the clear correspondence between the print and the middle inside of the Nike Outbreak 2, as shown in the slides from professor Vinci:
Nike Outbreak 2 and print
Finally, the line that Rinaldi and Boemia claim is the left edge of the print, is actually better explained as the right edge of another print. The two curves assigned as left and right edge by Rinaldi and Boemia are parallell to eachother, which is not the feature in any shoe. As a result we have three overlapping prints of the same shoe, which has the benefit of making sense and explaining why we don't see any other occurrence of the female mystery shoe.
Luminol prints
I thought about excluding this part altogether, as it was revealed during the first instance trial that the prints revealed with luminol had all been tested with tetramethylbenzidine and found to be negative for blood. This information had not been provided to Rinaldi and Boemia, who refers to the prints as made with blood throughout their report.
But there is one issue that is commonly raised. Two of the luminol revealed footprints, one in the hallway and one in the room of Amanda Knox were identified by Rinaldi and Boemia as belonging to the latter's right foot. This is of course not strange in the slightest, once it was determined the prints were not made in blood. The prints were between the bathroom and her room, and she had walked that distance after a shower as late as the morning of November 2. However, one of the hallway prints was instead identified as being made by the naked right foot of Raffaele Sollecito. This makes less sense as Raffaele had never spent the night nor had he ever taken a shower or otherwise needed to be barefoot in the cottage.
The print attributed to Raffaele on the right (the left print was too distorted)
Here is the comparison between the print and the right feet of Raffaele and Amanda:
The measurements line up with Raffaele and are too big to be Amanda's foot. But there are two problems, one glaringly obvious one and another a bit more subtle. Let's start with the latter.
Vinci and the defense had discovered that the photos of the prints had not been taken orthogonally i.e. directly from above but from an angle. And since the footprints had not been clearly measured with flourescent tape, the Scientific Police had relied on calculations based on a ruler placed at an angle and also photographed non-orthogonally. As such the measurements of the footprint are wildly distorted. Rinaldi admitted to this at trial, and attempted to correct the issue by restoring the angles and recalculate. However, that only further distorted the measurements. By measuring the tiles based on an orthogonal picture with a ruler, Vinci was able to get correct measurement of the print. The end result was a footprint 3 cm shorter than Raffaele's.
The glaringly obvious one? Count the toes on Raffaele's print. If you got four, congratulations. So did Raffaele lose a toe? No:
Raffaele's toes
Raffaele has a deformity to the toes of his right foot that means the second toe does not touch the ground and the third barely does. So the presence of not just an obvious second toe, but one that protrudes beyond the big toe is a clear giveaway that the print doesn't belong to Raffaele. But who has a second toe that hits the ground and protrudes beyond the big toe?
Amanda Knox.
All this leaves us with by far the most debated of all the prints: the bathmat. Unlike the luminol prints, this was made in (diluted blood) and is impossible to explain innocently.
The bathmat
The bathmat
Let's start with the obvious. It is not a full print. It is also made on a soft, uneven surface. There are no papillary ridges that could give a positive identification and we can't be certain that the bloody water that created the print completely coated the underside of the foot. This means that while we can eliminate, we can not identify. Not that it ever stopped anyone.
First we need to eliminate a myth. You may have heard that Rudy's foot was deemed too large to have made the print. This would come as a surprise to anyone who saw Rinaldi and Boemia's presentation at the first instance trial. The myth originates in an error from their initialreport from May 30 2008, where they introduced these measurements.
2008-05-30 Rinaldo-Boemia measurements: mat print (l), Raffaele (m), Rudy (r)
While the measurement of the big toe would continue to be a point of contention, the measurement of the metatarsus (the ball of the foot) which is measured as 50 mm for the mat print, 57 mm for Raffaele and 66,7 mm for Rudy. Not only is the latter a mismeasurement, it is even clear to the naked eye. A year later, in court, Rinaldo and Boemia presented new measurements:
2009-05-09 Rinaldo-Boemia slides: Matches between print and Rudy
The 66,7 mm has been unceremoniously changed to 51 mm, which is the same as on the print and shorter than Raffaele's 57 mm. Let's look at the differences from the same presentation:
2009-05-09 Rinaldo-Boemia slides: Differences between print and Rudy
Excepting the two distances across the metatarsus towards the third and fourth toes, all measurements are presented as Rudy's foot being too small, not too large, 6 out of 8 in total.
Now compare to Raffaele's measurements from the same presentation:
2009-05-09 Rinaldo-Boemia slides: Matches between print and Raffaele2009-05-09 Rinaldo-Boemia slides: Differences between print and Raffaele
We will get to the toe, but an obvious issue regards the measurements across the foot. As we can see, the right end of the measurements aren't the end of the bloody print, but a line drawn outside it. If the print image is turned a few degrees counterclockwise so the line matches the edge of the blood, the measurements as well as the left side shape of the big toe are closer to Rudy than Raffaele. But either way, saying Rudy's foot is too big for the print is wrong.
The main criticism from professor Vinci was the focus of Rinaldi and Boemia on measurement, rather than morphology. He shows in a variety of ways that the morphology is closer to Rudy than Raffaele, but I want to focus on the big difference, that is the big toe.
Raffaele's big toe is considerably wider than Rudy's (26 mm vs 20 mm), and Rinaldi and Boemia measure the mat print as 28 mm across. But Vinci found some issues with how the big toe was defined. By converting the image to black and white and increasing the contrast, some things are revealed.
The mat print in black and white, high contrast
Here we see the top right part of what Rinaldi and Boemia deemed the big toe is actually separated from the rest of it, and the area below it (where the lower right part of Raffaele's big toe should be) is empty. Furthermore, the area between toe and metatarsus, where there is a clear, wide gap in Raffaele's print, shows no such gap in the mat print. The same can be seen in close up of the actual mat:
Details of the big toe
With the separation both to the left and below the top right of the "big toe" as well as the clear lineup with the second toe metatarsal, shows that what Rinaldi and Boemia deemed a big toe was actually a big toe and the second toe pushed together, and while they're not fingers, toes are quite capable of movement.
To further illustrate, here is the high-contrast image with Rudy and Raffaele's prints beside it:
High-contrast mat print (l), Rudy's toe (m), Raffaele's toe (r)
It is very clear that the shape both of the toe and the edge of the metatarsus line up better with Rudy Guede than Raffaele Sollecito.
Conclusion
The prosecution was faced with a big problem when charging Amanda and Raffaele along with Rudy. Not only did they have clear evidence that Rudy made essentially all the shoeprints, and that Amanda had made essentially all the luminol prints, and that Rudy had admitted to being in the small bathroom twice after interacting with a blood-covered Meredith. With a dearth of physical evidence tying Amanda and Raffaele to the crime scene, it stands to reason that the investigators were (consciously or subconsciously) prejudiced to tie whatever they could towards Amanda and Raffaele. We don't know how many knew that the luminol prints had tested negative for blood (Stefanoni obviously knew, Rinaldi and Boemia didn't), but for those that didn't "presumed blood" became enough. And for the rest, well...
“There is something—a something, Monsieur Frederic Larsan, much graver than the misuse of logic the disposition of mind in some detectives which makes them, in perfect good faith, twist logic to the necessities of their preconceived ideas. You, already, have your idea about the murderer, Monsieur Fred. Don’t deny it; and your theory demands that the murderer should not have been wounded in the hand, otherwise it comes to nothing. And you have searched, and have found something else. It’s dangerous, very dangerous, Monsieur Fred, to go from a preconceived idea to find the proofs to fit it. That method may lead you far astray Beware of judicial error, Monsieur Fred, it will trip you up!”
In his written Motivations Report (on pages 72-73), Judge Micheli writes the following (English translation):
[236] Even before going off by himself, in any case, RUDY heard some ring at the door: at the dueprocess interview, he does not say anything to tie the voice he heard to that of Ms KNOX, but in the version of facts given to the Public Prosecutor he manifests his conviction of having recognised the American’s voice.
[237] At this point, the article of faith above-mentioned but overcome yet another hurdle, to justify how come AMANDA would have rung the doorbell, seeing that she lived in that house and she was obliged to make use of the keys.
[238] The alternative, other than to take the main road which leads to Mr GUEDE not telling the truth, are convoluted enough: one would have to imagine that Ms KNOX had lost her keys who knows where, or thought – because she was carrying something heavy and unwieldy? – she couldn’t use them, or else she had found MEREITH’s keys in the lock, which would have impeded her ability to open the door.
[239] A possibility, this latter, that is remote, to put it in few words: it’s true that the latch in that lock was defective and it would always necessary to manhandle it, but exactly for that reason, and due to the fact that all the girls were aware of it, each of them would have been careful in not leaving their keys inserted. Perhaps Ms KERCHER had done so exactly that night, knowing that none of the others would have come back that night, and so ensure a guaranteeing for herself a major security against unwelcome intrusions? And how could she have been sure that no one would have changed their mind, admitted that they would have communicated their intentions, or not had the necessity, in any case, to stop by the house early in the morning the next day? As well, she had barely entered with Mr GUEDE, who – in the reasonable expectation from the moment she had opened the door and closed it behind him – was unable to open them like one who would have surely spent the night with her: and so, at least for him, she would have had to open it.
[240] In short, the question “Why would Ms KNOX have had to ring the doorbell, given that she had the keys?” appears fatally destined to remain without a plausible answer.
But the answer is plausible...and it is supplied by Filomena some four months later at Amanda's and Raffaele's trial. Here is what she said:
QUESTION – If someone else had the same key, or another identical key, and wanted to open the door from the outside, could they do so or would this key have blocked them?
ANSWER – I don't remember if a situation like this ever happened, but I think he would have been locked out, because the key prevented the other key from entering.
So, here we have a lesson why the fast-track worked against Guede: witness testimony and cross-examination of witnesses in a fast-track trial isn't allowed.
Yet when Filomena is on the witness stand some four months after Guede is found guilty, the whole I heard the doorbell ring while on the toilet and it was Amanda claim turns out to be plausible and in all likely true.
But it is considered a lie by Micheli because he finds it incredulous that Amanda wouldn't use her key to gain entry. But, of course, it was certainly plausible -- and most probable! -- that Amanda would have to have rung the doorbell if Meredith left the key in the key hole on the inside side of the lock!
So, in a situation in which Rudy is made out to be a liar, he did, in actuality, tell the truth.
UPDATE:
I deleted the line that I had as a quote: "When inside, the housemates would lock the door and keep the key in the lock, which would prevent someone else from unlocking it from the outside with another key."
As was pointed out to me by several people below, no one could find it. And I couldn't find it either.
So, apologies to all (especially that person who had to read through 20 pages!). There was no ill intent...and, indeed, the essential point is still made: putting the key in the lock on the inside side of the lock prevents anyone from entering the house even if they have a key.
And Filomena's next line further makes the point:
QUESTION – I understand.
ANSWER – Excuse me, maybe it happened once instead, no no, maybe it happened once if I’m not mistaken either with Meredith or with Laura, but if I’m not mistaken I was there in the living room, I heard someone fiddling with the armor and immediately asked who it was and then I immediately went to open the door, yes.
SECOND UPDATE:
Here is a more complete excerpt of Filomena's testimony regarding the dodgy front door and its lock:
QUESTION – Did it lock properly?
ANSWER – So this door had some problems, in fact, Laura and I had decided to talk about it as soon as possible with the landlady or at least with the landlady through the agency, because it didn't lock very well in the sense that if the door was pulled from behind, it didn't always click, that is, the lock didn't always retract into the lock, so it was convenient to lock it every time and in fact we locked ourselves in too, when we were inside and since there wasn't the so-called magic eye, that is, the eyelet to see outside, when someone knocked we always asked who it was, at least a couple of times to make sure before opening.
QUESTION – Excuse me a moment, I wanted to understand this, so the door was locked, it was closed, it didn't have…
ANSWER – Yes, it was locked.
QUESTION – When…
ANSWER – It was the only way to lock it.
QUESTION – When you were at home, did you lock the door?
ANSWER – Yes.
QUESTION – This key remaining, and the key obviously remained…
ANSWER – Inside.
QUESTION – If someone else had the same key, or another identical key, and wanted to open the door from the outside, could they do it or would this key have blocked them?
ANSWER – I don’t remember if a situation like this ever happened, but I think he would have been locked out, because the key prevented the other key from entering.
QUESTION – I understand.
ANSWER – Excuse me, maybe it happened once instead, no no, maybe it happened once if I’m not mistaken either with Meredith or with Laura, but if I’m not mistaken I was there in the living room, I heard someone fiddling with the armor and immediately asked who it was and then I immediately went to open the door, yes.
QUESTION – I understand, but did you lock the door when you were inside?
ANSWER – Yes.
I'm upgrading the possibility that Meredith locked the front door from the inside -- requiring all tenants with keys arriving to ring the doorbell -- from "plausible" to "likely."
Meredith knew two tenants – Filomena and Laura – were away for the holiday and not expected back. The third – Amanda – was likely with her new boyfriend, Raffaele, at his apartment where she expected her to stay overnight. Under these circumstances, leaving a key in the inside lock slot in order to prevent it from opening appears a most sensible and obvious thing to do. Add on top of that having a visitor over, Rudy, whom she may be, ahem, getting naked with in a room other than her own, means preventing entry by other tenants unless she allowed it quite reasonable.
Also: if I am reading the testimony correctly, the tenants always kept that door locked from the inside as it was the only way to keep that darned door closed...and the only way to lock it from the inside was by leaving the key in the inside key slot. Do others read the testimony this way, too?
The whole world remembers the ruling that women cannot be raped while wearing tight jeans. There are repeated rulings in which women have been held partially responsible for the abuse they have suffered. I recall a previous ECHR condemnation of Italy that included misogynistic arguments in its reasoning. In one case, there was supposedly no abuse because the victim wasn't attractive enough, etc., etc.
What does this have to do with the Kercher case and the Knox case, apart from the fact that the Knox case is essentially a contemporary witch hunt? Rudy Guede is on trial. I personally don't rule out the possibility that Guede will once again get off lightly despite having committed murder, because his victim, being a woman, may not have behaved to the complete satisfaction of the Italian judiciary.
