Wednesday, October 05, 2011

Understanding Yesterday’s Knox/Sollecito Verdict

Posted by Maundy Gregory


For those who have been reading my blog Maundy Gregory it will not come as a surprise when I say I am less then wholly satisfied with yesterday’s acquittal of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

I’m very much with the unruly mob shouting “shame!” outside the courthouse this evening. In spirit, you understand.

I don’t even believe this is a case where a court has erred with two left feet on the wrong side of the fine line between technical and reasonable doubt. I’ll not go into the detail of the evidence, since, over the next few days, that will undoubtedly be done thousands of times with greater inaccuracy than I could ever achieve. But perhaps it suffices to give the view that it is such that no acquittal could have been possible under normal circumstances.

It won’t be possible to know how the decision of the court was reached until it publishes its detailed motivation report. But I find it hard to imagine how it will make sense. The disheartening expectation I have, which I think others will share, it that it will offer the reasoning of a court that has crumpled under the pressure of a public relations campaign. A humiliating day for Italy.

And, of course, a heartbreaking tragedy if you are able to spare a thought for the Kercher family. Tomorrow, one of their daughter’s murderers will fly home to ticker-tape and a small fortune. Another, like the drummer in successful rock band, will take a smaller share of the royalties, but the proceeds, taking into account possible government compensation, may still be enough so that he is at liberty to choose whether or not he ever wants to work in his life or not. Merdith Kercher’s death seems almost reduced to the level of a smart career move.

Yesterday’s verdict will undoubtedly, however, be appealed. That’s more than a speculative exercise, since it does happen than people are acquitted at first appeal and then found guilty by Italy’s supreme court. But the focus of the second appeal will be much narrower, restricted only to questions of law and logic. Although that is construed fairly widely in the Italian system, what it means is that the decision of the appeal court can’t be corrected simply because it is wrong.

It will have to be shown to be legally unsound before any evidence can be re-examined. Until the motivation report from the appeal is published, it is impossible to say what the chances of the prosecutors succeeding in a further appeal might be.

The case, because it has had such a high profile, may have ramifications in Italy for two reasons.

Firstly, even though the reasons for the decision will not officially be known for a few weeks, it can be assumed that the court has rejected entirely the forensic evidence provided by the police. That’s not a small matter. As in most European countries, forensic testing in Italy is centralised, so an implication of the verdict may be that the entire forensic science set-up in the country is simply not fit for purpose or, at least, it wasn’t at the time of the investigation.

A modern forensic science service ought to be able to handle DNA evidence that, as in this case, comes from a very small sample or from an item that had lain in situ for some weeks without difficulty. The Italian police would undoubtedly claim that their forensic teams are as capable as any in the world. I’m not in a position to deny that. But, from a practical point-of-view, if the whole of the scientific aspect of a prosecution is capable of simply crumbling in court, it must be important to try to understand why that happened.

Secondly, reform of the judicial system in Italy is a very live issue, in no small part because Silvio Berlusconi stands accused of various crimes and so he has made judicial reform a priority. I think it is unlikely that Italian public opinion will be behind yestrerday’s verdict and it will be seen by many as an example of how Italian justice is far too lenient with defendants.

Personally, I think Italy should take caution before making too reactionary an interpretation of the Knox/Sollecito case. It may be fair to point out that Italian appeals can tend to be slanted so that the focus for live examination is selected aspects of the defence case, so that much of the prosecution case takes a back seat. And there may be some room for quibbling about certain evidentiary rules applied in the case (the exclusion from evidence of Knox’s false allegations against Patrick Lumumba, for example).

But the decision yesterday can’t just be about a systematic problem. The automaticity of appeals in Italy may indeed favour defendants. But, surely, a guilty person ought to remain guilty regardless of how may re-trials are granted.

If, like me, you’re disheartened by yesterday’s verdict, then I don’t really have much to offer by way of consolation, except the observation that justice is not always done and that’s something we have to live with. And at least you know, next time you kill someone, to think about who is going to do your PR before you think about who your lawyer is going to be.





Comments

With respect, the case was not just about forensics and DNA. On the Groundreport site I posted as ‘bejust’.  A pro-Amanda blogger had published ‘10 questions for the jury in the Amanda Knox appeal to ask themselves’

I posted these 10 questions for the jury to ask themselves WITHOUT referring to DNA or forensics.
1) Why did Amanda ring her mother at 3 am Seattle time (12 noon Perugia time) when she was not concerned enough to phone the police?
2) Why did she let Merediths phone ring for a matter of seconds?
3) Why did she not leave Meredith a voice message which only takes seconds? ( ‘Meredith something funny has happened at the flat and I need you to get in touch’)
4) How did they know nothing had been taken from Filomenas room?
5) Why was there evidence of a staged break-in?
6) Why was there evidence of a clean-up?
7) Who moved Merediths body some hours after the murder?
8) Who removed Merediths bra some hours after the murder?
9) Why do they not have an alibi? Why did they try to invent one?
10) Why does Guede insist they were there?

I think that the whole thing stinks of American dollars, politics, consessions etc. Had the verdict been something other than acquittal we, and the rest of the world would not be asking questions about the italian legal system.

Posted by starsdad on 10/05/11 at 04:10 AM | #

It’s painful to hear that the first juror cited lack of a motive and flawed forensics as the reason he voted to acquit.

The various judges who heard this case did the prosecution no favors by presenting their own pet theories and rejecting those of the prosecution.

The prosecution also bears some responsibility of course. Among other things they tried too hard to establish premeditation—which was also a prosecution mistake in the Casey Anthony case.

The defence took the uncertainty about the motive and ran with it. Wikipedia lists at least 13 different motives that prosecutors supposedly put forward. While that is clearly nonsense, it shows what’s out there in the media.

As for the “flawed forensics”, expect all of the judges and jurors who voted to acquit to cite this. It just means they judged the forensic evidence by an improper standard, for whatever reason. I will grant that Comodi did not do a stellar job, but I’m sure she’s gotten lots of convictions with less evidence against less well-heeled defendants.

Posted by brmull on 10/05/11 at 04:56 AM | #

Skep that account of Knox Landing is mindblowing. I hope someone recorded the live feed. It would go viral in a heartbeat.

Posted by brmull on 10/05/11 at 05:09 AM | #

The Marriot PR stunt all us lucky people have just seen showed Amanda Knox in full histrionic mode. I dont believe her for one minute.

She hardly behaved like one of the Birmingham 6 or the Guilford 4 on their respective aquittals.

Now we have the very non corrupt Judge Heavey on Sky News talking about “the cartwheel fabrication”.
I’ve had enough for one night…

Posted by Deathfish2000 on 10/05/11 at 05:14 AM | #

Nina Burleigh’s latest in the LA Times proves once and for all that her take on the murder is distorted by her radical feminist conspiracy theories. Not to be taken seriously.

Posted by brmull on 10/05/11 at 05:40 AM | #

Seattle looks tonight like a small town craving attention. They don’t mind if it’s getting their own version of O.J. Simpson. The celebration of ignorance is overwhelming and disrespect for the victim is astounding. The willingness to belong overrides every bit of common sense. Anyone not subject to mass madness could see through Amanda’s “performance” on arrival. It is truly sickening to have to endure all this for those of us living in the area.
Please, try to look up somewhere her “speech” this afternoon. I hope someone “youtubed” it already. The cringing it produces is immense.

Posted by bmwwelt on 10/05/11 at 05:44 AM | #

I will not comment on the verdict. We are taught in Law school in Italy that a sentence must always be respected. Therefore I feel compelled to assume that Amanda and Raffaele were indeed innocent (at least until the decision by the Supreme Court).

However the Supreme Court of Cassation cannot reverse the Appeals Court verdict and issue a guilty verdict.

The Supreme Court can however find the Appeals Court decision in violation of procedural law or in the application of the law. In which case the Supreme court will remand the case back to the Appeals Court for an appeal retrial.

The Supreme Court however rarely reverses a not guilty verdict by the appeal court rendered with so called “formula piena” (i.e. full exoneration from having committed the crime, not just lack of evidence).

Therefore the most likely outcome is a confirmation of the acquittal by the Supreme Court.

This is a defeat for the Italian justice either way. If they are indeed guilty, they were let go because of the investigators’ and prosecutors’ incompetence. And if they are indeed innocent they were imprisoned unjustly for 4 years for no reason.

Either way the system has shown its horrible flaws. Shame is not a strong enough word.

Posted by Commissario Montalbano on 10/05/11 at 05:53 AM | #

@Starsdad, you forgot:

Why was she concerned about the knife in the very beginning?

Why RS try to explain that Meredith used the knife?

Why she accused Lumumba AFTER know RS don’t back her alibi anymore.

Why she said they woke up at 10am, but telephone records show that they turn on them at 6am?

Why and how she knows Meredith scream, have sex, bled to death?

Why RF apartment smelled strong (I think Clorox Odor) according to a policeman?

Why did RS called Emergency # after police arrived?

Why they did not assist Meredith Memorial? That is not evidence, but I am just curious.

Why she was surprised when her mother told her that the knife thing was BS?

Why she behave weirdly before and during court proceedings? That is not evidence itself, but it show lack of respect to authorities.

Why she took a shower after saw blood in the bath and the door opened.

I have not changed my mind, I think prosecutors are accountable (not 100% but maybe 50%+) for the verdict. There is not any conspiration or money under the table. When I saw that they requested to double or triple sentence to AK compared to RS regarding the solitary confinement (to be honest, I was very angry, and I am not a supporter of her)

When they talked about witches and other fantastic things… I lose hope. I am not a lawyer, but I know the more you villainize someone the more you need to prove.  I think Guilia Bongiorno was smarter in saying AK is like Jessica Rabbit; imagine if she’d have said AK is like Mother Theresa. You cannot be extreme.

If prosecutors had gone through all the arguments, reviewed circumstantial evidence piece by piece, remembered the events; additionally if they did not attack so hard AK they would have won. It is more acceptable to people hear: Amanda K is some narcissist (it was confirmed by witnesses), who did not get along with Meredith anymore (again, this was proved) and unfortunately drugs was mixed (they both accepted smoked marihuana).

But saying she was a psycho, she-devil, witch etc etc… no way. For me, it shows desperation. I have not been in the trial, but I follow various reporters in Twitter, so I read all playbacks, so my opinion is based on that. If I am mistaken about the focus of prosecutors and Maresca, my apologizes.

I agree with Brmull about proving premeditation as Casey A case.

Posted by lulupr on 10/05/11 at 06:20 AM | #

Commissario,
I appreciate your legal insight but the investigators and prosecutors conduct was, I would wager, not substantially different than any other case. The state simply does not have the resources or the ability to overcome a gold-plated defense—in Italy, the UK, or the US. We have seen this time and time again.

Posted by brmull on 10/05/11 at 06:24 AM | #

Lulu, those are great questions.  I think all of us would want to know the answers.

I agree with you that the prosecution may have focused too much on character, and that there was a dissonance between the evil people they were describing and the terrified creatures sitting in front of the jury (especially Amanda; Raffaele’s relaxed demeanor may have been due to been heavily medicated, some people say). 

But here’s something that someone pointed out: the one who really came after her and called her witch, luciferina, etc. was Carlo Pacelli, Lumumba’s lawyer.  And Pacelli was the only prosecution lawyer who actually won: she was found guilty of calunnia, and her sentence increased from 1 to 3 years.  So this is somewhat boggling.  It may be that he won due to undeniable evidence (her written statement), but that his words may have hurt the larger prosecution case.

I also think you’re right about Bongiorno not going to an extreme.  I thought she was actually pretty decent, considering she was going to bat for Raffaele, not Amanda.

Posted by Vivianna on 10/05/11 at 06:51 AM | #

A few questions for Commissario Montalbano:

It is not clear to us whether the verdict fell under 530.1 or 530.2, since Judge Hellman did not specify when he read the verdict.  We read part of an interview with Mr. Mignini in which he was saying he wasn’t clear about this part either.  Based on the interpretations we’ve read so far, it seems to be 530.1.

Realistically, do you think that the motivation report will be able to substantiate a 530.1?

Do you think there might be difficulties justifying this verdict in light of the calunnia conviction?

Posted by Vivianna on 10/05/11 at 06:58 AM | #

Exactly! That is my point, about how they were portrayed and how they look at the hearings. We can denie that most decent people have problem in see the evil in others, that’s why they want to see motive although it is not necessary prove the motive. 

PS- I can’t watch more photos of Arline Kercher anymore, they break my heart not only for the suffering but also she seems so humble, she never has lost her etiquette and composture, I can imagine her grieving but at the same time trying to keep faith, and also she shows no hate to her daughter’s murderess, that is very admirable. My parents are people very humble and with a faith as solid as a rock, I compared them with Arline and I get emotional because they are like her. I know God has a big very big gift to her.

Posted by lulupr on 10/05/11 at 07:22 AM | #

Italy, corrupt after all.

Posted by Nell on 10/05/11 at 07:35 AM | #

What hit me, was: one of the (prison?) guards for Sollecito congratulated him immediatly in a very intense sort of hug. As if saying:” I knew you were innocent”.

Posted by Helder Licht on 10/05/11 at 10:37 AM | #

@deathfish
@lulupr

There was no celebration of ‘I’m innocent and I’m free!!’ was there. I would have expected a lot more demonstration that she was innocent. If I was innocent, every other word would be ‘innocent’ as it was with the Guilford 4 etc.
There are many unresolved questions beyond those dealing with DNA and forensics. These (very reasonable) questions are only answered when Amanda is considered to have been involved.

Posted by starsdad on 10/05/11 at 11:37 AM | #

Commissario Montalbano gives an excellent brief overview of the legalities in play.
I expect no further action on Amanda Knox.

But I cannot agree that the police & the prosecutors were incompetent.
It is Judge Hellman who betrayed his office under pressure of politics.

Posted by Ernest Werner on 10/05/11 at 01:04 PM | #

Thanks for posting this. I’ll be round for my cheque later.

Posted by Maundy Gregory on 10/05/11 at 01:25 PM | #

As fellow posters are highlighting, it is difficult to look back at everything now with AK and RS as innocent parties.

Too many questions that belie the behaviour of an innocent person, and also belie any kind of logic !

My twopence worth:

1. Morning after the murder - AK goes back to her flat and discovers a break in in Filomena’s room, blood stains in bathroom and Meredith’s room locked. Reaction - decides to have a shower and put the washing machine on ! Does not call the police as a first action. Completely illogical behaviour in the circumstances.

2. Multiple changing alibis for both of them - an innocent person has one alibi. Its not logical to keep changing your alibi if you are innocent. AK may argue some police coercion in her changing stories - but RS has never used this as a reason for his changing stories.

3. Different standards of alibis - I don’t understand why Patrick Lumumba required a rock solid alibi to obtain release from jail - but AK and RS have been pronounced innocent without any kind of proven alibi.

Also, with regards to the Italian court system:

1. DNA evidence - this appeal result may set a poor precedent for DNA evidence in the future. You can’t simply play the “contamination card” to discount DNA evidence - you have to prove it.

2. Spontaneous declarations to the court - a really poor part of the process, which just played into AK’s hands - can say anything and not subject to cross examination.

Posted by gabster1971 on 10/05/11 at 01:58 PM | #

A question for Commissario Montalbano.

There have been doubts expressed about certain details of the dispositivo of the sentence.

It has been reported that even Mignini said in an interview that it was not clear whether the acquittal was the full formula under 530/1 or made under 530/2.

This is from an article on the Rai site which states that the acquittal was made under 530/1:
http://www.rainews24.rai.it/it/news.php?newsid=157050

This article states that the acquittal was the full formula under 530/1.

Comprende quattro commi - L’articolo 530 del Codice di Procedura Penale

Questo articolo - in base al quale (primo comma) Amanda Knox e Raffaele Sollecito sono stati assolti dall’accusa di aver ucciso Meredith Kercher - stabilisce i casi in cui deve essere pronunciata sentenza di assoluzione

ROMA -Il primo comma (quello che ha riguardato Amanda e Raffaele) dice: ‘‘Se il fatto non sussiste, se l’imputato non lo ha commesso, se il fatto non costituisce reato o non è previsto dalla legge come reato ovvero se il reato è stato commesso da persona non imputabile o non punibile per un’altra ragione, il giudice pronuncia sentenza di assoluzione indicandone la causa nel dispositivo’‘. Viene chiamato in causa tutte le volte che il giudice assolve un imputato con formula ampia.

‘‘Il giudice - stabilisce il secondo comma - pronuncia sentenza di assoluzione anche quando manca, è insufficiente o è contraddittoria la prova che il fatto sussiste, che l’imputato lo ha commesso, che il fatto costituisce reato o che il reato è stato commesso da persona imputabile’‘. Corrisponde, per gran parte, alla vecchia formula dell’insufficienza di prove. La giurisprudenza ha stabilito che si ha l’insufficienza della prova se essa non assuma quella consistenza e quell’efficacia tale da poter fondare un’affermazione di responsabilità, mentre si ha la contraddittorietà della prova quando sussiste l’equivalenza delle prove di reità con quelle di innocenza.

Il terzo comma dice che ‘‘se vi è la prova che il caso è stato commesso in presenza di una causa di giustificazione o di una causa personale di non punibilità ovvero vi è dubbio sull’esistenza delle stesse, il giudice pronuncia sentenza di assoluzione a norma del comma 1’‘.

Il quarto e ultimo comma, infine, stabilisce che ‘‘con la sentenza di assoluzione il giudice applica, nei casi previsti, le misure di sicurezza’‘.

Could you shed any further light on these doubts?
As I understand it, 530/1 is a complete exoneration, while 530/2 is acquittal for insufficient proof.

Would a sentence under 530/2 make it easier for a Cassazione striking out of the appeal sentence?

Posted by Tiziano on 10/05/11 at 02:56 PM | #

Thank you so much for the articles explaining the Italian legal system.  I had no idea of the details.  I look forward to reading more.  Much appreciated. 

On that note can one of you answer this question - does Rudy Guede have a chance at a retrial now?

Posted by believing on 10/05/11 at 07:04 PM | #

Another anomaly if we are meant to accept the innocence of Ak and RS.

Meredith’s door was locked and the key never found. If AK and RS were not involved, are we meant to believe that Guede (and 2 other unidentified persons) would have any kind of motivation to do this ?

What kind of random murderers/thieves are bothered with locking the bedroom door when they leave and have the time to do this ?

Surely the only motivation for that bedroom door to be locked (and key thrown away) was from someone who was a resident of the flat - who did not want any of the other flatmates to unexpectedly return and discover the scene ?

Posted by gabster1971 on 10/05/11 at 08:37 PM | #

Agreed Gabster and also liked your other post showing the lack of logic in other situations.  However I feel some kind of dispair in debating the evidence and issues anymore, as if the court did not debate them like this, and if they merely went on the DNA evidence not being credible which was found in the room, or that it was contaminated somehow (how would Sollecito’s DNA including Y chromosomes be able to fly onto the bra clasp anyway, even if there was contamination?)

I would think Stefanoni would be seething at the way her department was depicted as totally incompetent and that the DNA evidence was not allowed to be retested by the judge.  That alone to me seems extremely fishy that he would base the verdict on these two pieces of evidence and then not allow a bit more time to retest them with at least a final word on it.  And the fact that he denied all of the other requests of the prosecution to revisit other evidence, from what I read.  It seemed like he was on the side of the defense from the beginning.  And Raphael having that cheery glow at the end, to me seems suspicious, as if someone had tipped him off that he would be acquitted.  Very strange to me how it went in this appeal. 

Agree with Lulu that a lower-key approach and the motive being the drug-use, lack of inhibitions, would have helped the case.

I didn’t read anywhere but I suppose no fingerprints or DNA of any kind was found on the two cell phones including that of Meredith?

I still don’t understand the throwing away of the cell phones (to hide what exactly?  To make sure they didn’t ring while police were in the house in the morning?)

Anyway it seems to all be an exercise in intellectual debate at this point which will make no difference, from what Commissario M stated in terms of the Supreme Court.

Posted by believing on 10/05/11 at 09:24 PM | #

@ believing

Re the mobile phones being dumped, it makes perfect sense if AK and RS were involved - as they did not want the dying Meredith to be able make a call for help. We can deduce after her fatal scream that the 3 perpretators all bolted from the house and left her to die. With AK and RS coldly taking the phones with them - and then dumping them at first opportunity.

If AK and RS are not involved, we are left with another incongruous situation. If Guede is just an opportunist thief (with 2 other unidentified persons….), why did he steal the phones and then dump them ? Surely a desperate thief steals goods to own them or sell them for cash - look at all the stolen mobile phones and laptops that end up in those “Cash Converter” type stores.

We already know Guede’s primary motivation that evening was sex. If he was also a thief, why did he not take any other valuables from the flat eg. Filomena’s laptop, jewellery etc. And why would Guede even risk taking the phones and leaving his fingerprints on them etc ? And if Guede also stole Meredith’s credit cards, why did he not attempt to use them ??

And if Guede (and others) was so strong to hold Meredith down and inflict the brutal 42 stab wounds, bruises etc - why was he (and others) not strong enough to hold her down and complete the rape ? - the evidence suggested that Meredith was manually assaulted only.

So we have to believe now that Guede (and others) was both a poor rapist and a poor thief - achieving neither to a satisfactory degree.

Like you say believing, its a waste of energy going over all these points again. We can only wait for the motivation report in 90 days time to see what the rationale of the jury was.

Posted by gabster1971 on 10/06/11 at 08:30 AM | #

Let’s recall that Guede’s Supreme Court case ruled that 3 people were involved in the murder - as others have already highlighted. The appeals court has now ruled that RS and AK are innocent - so they are out of the picture….....

It leaves an unclear picture for the Kerchers of how their daughter met her brutal death. If 3 people are involved, who are the other 2 unidentified persons - who did not leave any evidence of themselves at the scene ?

If Guede’s motivation that evening was sex and theft, he completed neither to a convincing degree. Meredith was manually assaulted the court ruled - she was not raped. Yet she was brutally murdered with 42 stab wounds and bruises. If Guede (+ others) were strong enough to kill her in such a manner, why was Guede (+ others) not strong enough to hold her down and complete the rape ?

Items stolen from the flat included the missing rent money, Meredith’s 2 mobile phones and her credit cards. Nothing was stolen from Filomena’s trashed room ie. laptop, jewellery etc or from the rest of the flat. So Guede decided to take the mobile phones (which he then dumped), the credit cards (which he did not use) - we are left with the only useful item stolen being the missing rent money.

So on this whole tragic evening, Guede (+ others) only achieves a manual assault of Meredith, and gets away with only a few minor stolen items - and he (+ others) were willing to brutally murder Meredith for what appears to be little reward ? All on an evening when he gambled that none of the residents of this flat might come home at any moment ?

Also, at the point Meredith let out her fatal scream (which a few neighbours heard), Guede (+ others) would have surely bolted from the flat - leaving them no time to steal any items, trash Filomena’s room and lock Meredith’s bedroom door.

The Kerchers do not have an adequate answer of how their daughter was murdered. This verdict is rubbish.

Posted by gabster1971 on 10/07/11 at 12:56 PM | #

I like gabster’s posts of 10/6 & 10/7, both strong on logic.

Having once checked the dumped cell phones on the view from air, I thought that Raffaele might have passed through the gate in the wall (nearby) to throw them in that garden.  Maybe to give investigators the impression that they were discarded by the assailant on his way out of town?
Just a thought, of course.

And while “This verdict is rubbish” as gabster shows by trashing the Guede (+others) theory, can we assume that it won’t be upheld. Or perish of neglect by a death-in-process of the appeals?

I see Amanda home free, whence two further thoughts bearing on the psychology of this matured young woman.
We ought first to recall the trajectory of her descent into pathology. It follows a logarithmic curve downwards, gathering velocity.
(a) Rock-throwing orgiastic party before departing—the unwinding begins.
(b) Failure to find her footing in a choice German position obtained by her uncle, much to his discomfiture (failure to stabilize.)
(c) Episode with stranger on the train to Rome. She reports this openly (!) & says, “I can have any man I want.”
(d) In view of the depth of depravity toward which she is sliding, the brief length of time of her acquaintance with Meredith Kercher represents a gathering velocity.  In less than Two Months she conceives of a rape of her roommate?
(e) Meeting Raffaele at a concert, she has known him less than two weeks before they initiate a rape at knifepoint followed by murder: this was free-fall.

Secondly & briefly: Amanda has never faced up to any of that, as far as we know.  Trouble there is that the residual impulse (however long unacted) is very likely alive within her.
It would be my view that Amanda’s rape is an act of revenge—but Not revenge on Meredith, who only offers a target, who is merely convenient.  Amanda has enacted revenge on an Unconscious Object (but who that person would be we cannot know: it would be someone implicated in an early abuse.)

She won’t find rest in the arms of her family. Their own position is inconsistent.  They ask for privacy, yet engage the Omnipotent PR firm to handle contracts for interviews, films & books (& money.) As one poster has suggested: she looks to be an indentured servant for quite some time. But can she handle that?

Posted by Ernest Werner on 10/07/11 at 06:09 PM | #

I was also pondering how Guede’s dump in Filomena’s bathroom is another paradox - if we take the “innocent” AK and RS out of the picture completely.

In using the bathroom, it showed that Guede actually had time to do so - and would suggest he was initially in the flat under normal circumstances. If he is there as an opportunist thief/rapist, it is unlikely he is going to use the bathroom in the middle of the break-in - at the risk of the other residents of the flat returning or a neighbour who may have alerted the police etc. Time is of the essence in a burglary - no time to waste taking 3-4 minutes for a dump…..

Not flushing the toilet indicates panic, or he forgot, or perhaps the flush did not work first time round.

Even if you go with the improbable scenario of Meredith letting Guede in consensually, why is he then directed to Filomena’s bathroom rather than her own ?

With Meredith’s fatal scream, the timing of Guede’s dump can only have happened before this point - so he is either on the bog when she screamed or earlier.

It’s more incongruous behaviour from Guede and like many of the other loose ends, none of it makes any sense without AK and RS involvement.

Without their involvement, we have to assume Guede is a bumbling thief/rapist - who is quite happy to use bathroom’s during a break-in - and hide in there waiting to assault/murder any returning residents to the flat - who coincidentally just happen to be female rather than male.

Posted by gabster1971 on 10/10/11 at 11:43 AM | #


Make a comment

Smileys



Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry The Kercher Family And The Knox Family Go Their Separate Ways As The Tough Questions Mount

Or to previous entry The Guardian Publishes A Negative Take On Italian Justice Rather Poorly Researched