Amanda's Book Due Out April 30, 2013

Old Motivation Report In Focus- Overturned By Appeals Court

The following is the first motivation report from the original trial court that convicted Amanda Knox of murder. This is not the new Appeals motivation report which was released in Dec 2011 by Judge Hellmann. The following report was overruled by the Judge Hellmann report. The old report below shows the errors in the judges thinking that convicted Knox and it's only purpose now is to show how foolish the reasoning was at the original trial that found Knox guilty of murder. Just about every point in the below report has been disputed by the new Judge Hellmann report of Dec 2011.

I will be going over some key issues contained in the Judges Motivation document starting with the so-called "staged break-in". I am using the English translation and any pages quoted refer to that document. Pages 48-55 cover the break-in which I am about to get into. I would like to point out that the Motivation report by the judges is the reasoning those judges used to convict Amanda Knox of murder. If the motivation report is faulty then their thinking was faulty and therefore their verdict of guilty was faulty.

One sees over and over again throughout the report that the judges completely ignore certain possibilities while while running like the dickens with other possibilities to arrive at their conclusions. In many cases they discount certain possibilities and give reasons why they do, but the point is, why they discount certain possibilities in many instances simply does not make good sense. Although the report goes into great length on each issue- if you read carefully you come to the conclusion that they are often running in the wrong direction- often because of what they ignore as valid possibilities.
I would suggest anyone following this to download the English translation of the report and to read pages 48-55 to get a better grasp on the following:

The judges firmly believe that there was no real break-in, and that Amanda and her boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito tried to fool the police into thinking that someone- the murderer- broke in through a window to gain entry. The judges believed that Amanda broke the window herself or Raffaele and Amanda together.

Here is the judges reasoning on the matter:
They do go into quite a bit of detail as anyone can see reading pages 48-55. They nail it down to two things basically- The way the glass fell from the window, and the rock that was found on the floor inside the room. This was Filomena Romanelli's room- the window which was elevated from the ground 3.5m.

Now, the judges came up with 3 different ways the window was broken (the numbering 1,2,3, is mine) 1. The rock was thrown through the window by a person standing on the ground. 2. The rock was carried up to the window and use to break the glass- but this one they did not consider as they said that could not be done. 3. The rock was thrown against the window from the inside of the house.
Now the report goes on to show that because of the pattern of fallen glass (which was just on the window sill and inside the room and none hit the ground outside) that the rock was not thrown from the ground- and they give several other reasons why the rock was not thrown from the ground. So this left the judges to go into detail about the 3rd choice- that the rock was thrown from the inside of the room

. And they came up with that Amanda or Raffaele broke the window from the inside with the shutters closed and that's why no glass hit the ground outside. They did this- according to the report, to fake a break-in and make the police think that someone broke into the house and killed Meredith. And according to the report- the judges are certain this was the case- that Amanda and Raffaele staged the break-in to cover their own tracks.

Well now that all seems logical- at a glance. In the report the judges are using Rudy Guede as the one who would break into the house and kill Meredith- as the defense for Amanda had put forth at the trial. In the end though the judges decided against the possibility of Rudy breaking-in through the window. Instead, they decided that Amanda and Raffaele staged the break-in. I suppose that is the only thing that made sense to them. However, the judges did in fact choose to ignore one important point and by limiting the possibilities came up with a faulty conclusion.

As noted above- #2. That he carried the rock up with him. This the judges ignored and as stated in the report concerning this they said "It seems impossible to accept that he actually made the climb while carrying the large rock..." Well, it is actually more than possible that is exactly what happened- it is even probable.
Rude Guede was experienced in breaking into places. It is a known fact that he carried a knapsack with him (he was caught with one after the school break-in). The judges were probably thinking of him carrying a rock in one hand while trying to climb up to the window with the other. There would be no need to do that.
All Rudy had to do was to pick a large stone and put it in his knapsack and strap the pack to his back and climb up to the window. Once up there he could just swing the pack with the rock in it at the window, thus breaking it, muffling the noise, and as a result block the glass from coming back at him- and this would also explain why none was found on the ground. The backpack would effectively block the glass and you would end up with a pattern such as was found- with the glass on the window sill and inside the room, and none on the ground. He could have used the rock in that fashion, or, once at the window, taken the rock out and thrown it against the window- again the backpack would act as a shield when held in front of him to prevent glass from flying back at him- Either way, the glass pattern would be similar to the glass pattern as it was found the next day. Since Rudy was experienced at breaking and entering, he would no doubt come prepared, and with the 'tools of the trade' at hand.

As can be seen above, the judges left out a key possibility and as a result did not consider it in their evaluation of the matter, other than to say it was "impossible to accept". Therefore they came up with what they thought was the only logical conclusion when in reality there were other, more rational possibilities to consider. There were other points the judges touched on in the report as concerns the break-in, but the above issue of the breaking of the window and the glass pattern was the primary point the judges had to make and they went into great detail on this one particular issue. Yet in the end, it proves not to be conclusive and an error of omission.

There was also the 'glass on top of the clothes' issue, but since glass can adhere to clothes particularly things like sweaters, that if they were kicked around a bit and flipped over- what was on the bottom could end up on the top. Also the glass on top of the clothes was not a cut and dried issue in the report- with conflicting testimony and photographs at trial.
I have addressed the key point in the report that the judges made about the break-in above.

The report continues to address the issue of how Rudy got into the house. Since the judges reject the idea that Rudy broke in through the window, the report now addresses the issue of how it is believed that Rudy got in. The judges were well aware of the fact that Rudy was in the house that night- he left a lot of evidence to prove it and even admitted it himself. So, if he did not come through the window (the judges believed the break-in was staged remember) how then did Rudy get into the house. Page 56-60 of the English translation goes over this point. According to the judges in the report, the door of the house was not forced, and since the broken window was ruled out by them as not being a valid break-in, someone therefore must have let Rudy in through the door.
The judges ruled out that Meredith would let Rudy into the house (ok, I'll buy that) so the only thing left for the judges is to state that someone besides Meredith let him in- someone who had a key, since the door showed no evidence of being broken down or forced open. They state that Laura and Filomena (who had keys) were away with valid alibis- this left only Amanda who had a key, who the judges say had a doubtful alibi when saying she was at her boyfriend's.

Now since the judges in the report stated that Amanda staged the break-in and since she was the only one left with a key to the flat, they therefore come to the conclusion that it was Amanda who let Rudy into the house (either personally or gave him the key).

This is a prime example of building a straight house on a crooked foundation. Taken with the information on the break-in above, the judges 'assume' they are correct about the staged break-in and therefore surmise that if Rudy did not come through the window then someone let him in. Never, of course, do they doubt one assumption before moving on to the next.
And so far, what the judges believe are logical facts, are no more than assumptions and speculation- and a shinning example of 'selective thinking'.
It appears, on the surface of the report, that the judges are leaving no stones unturned, yet in fact what is perfectly clear, is that they are selecting which stones they turn over. And all the while stepping over other stones that do not serve the purpose of their report- which is simply to support their convictions of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

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.


Anonymous said...

The broken window may be consistent with an actual breakin but the fact that nothing was stolen and that nobody thought there had been a burglary (including the Postal Police, Filomena, Raffaele in his 112 call, or Amanda while showing the place to the Postal Police) demonstrates clearly that there simply was no burglary. The glass pattern is just one part of the whole picture.

The front door also doesn't close properly and there's no proof supplied by the defence that Amanda had locked it properly when she left the previous evening. It's by her own account that she found the front door difficult to secure and that she'd found it swinging wide open when she arrived the next morning on the 2nd.

Saint_Michael1 said...

Well I don't know how you deduce that- it's quite simple. In through the window and out the front door- There were things taken- Meredith was robbed after she was murdered. There were missing credit cards, money, cell phones, and her keys.
I think once you murder someone your thoughts are then on getting cash not laptops. Once you kill someone you don't want to be caught with items that can be traced back to the owner and face a murder charge.
The reason the room with the broken window was tossed but nothing taken is probably because Guede was interrupted by Meredith and after he killed her- I think he just wanted to get out of there as fast as he could so he took her money and cards and phones and left by the front door- Now you can't keep the front door closed without locking it- but Guede would not know that- Thats why the door was open when Amanda got to the house.
The break-in was not staged it was a real break-in through the window and he then left through the front door. The Massei report explanation for the broken window is ridiculous and sheer speculation.

Anonymous said...

No, Amanda and Raffaele were not at his apartment quietly all night. Kokomani had a run-in with them on the street near the murder scene. They brandished knives at his car, tried to get his car, they had on ski-type masks. He threw olives at them and sped away. Curatolo saw them that night, too. They were NOT at Sollecito's apartment.

This fact alone is a death knell to their innocence.

Saint_Michael1 said...

Are you out of your mind- the 2 witnesses you are talking about- one is a park bum and the other is nuts and was laughed out or court. Kokomani was not taken seriously by anyone in the court and made a complete fool out of himself saying Amanda had a big space between her teeth so the judge asked her to smile and of course there is no space.
Get your facts straight and do the research.

Anonymous said...

Right, a knapsack miraculously blocked every shard of glass from falling backwards onto the ground below, as the backpack was pummeled with force against a high window to which the perp stretched, reached, dangled and held on for dear life while simultaneously smashing at the window fast and hard to get a handhold by which to pull himself through. yeah, works for me NOT

Saint_Michael1 said...

Do you think that is impossible for a young athletic man who was an expert at breaking and entering. That was presented as only one possible answer- there are others. The point is- it was not impossible to break through the window as the Massei report states. The thinking in the Massei report is really lame- it may be cool with you but to a lot of people, the Massei report really missed the beam.

Anonymous said...

I agree that Rudy or a strong agile young athlete could have gained entrance to that window. However, the rare chance he could heave an oddshaped backback directly at the glass without the least stray shard falling backward toward the ground, is incredulous. Some glass would have fallen onto the leaves beneath the window and would have been a point of interest for investigators. They do this stuff all the time, it's not rocket science. And why on earth would Rudy or any other cat burglar take careful pains to NOT let shards of glass fall to the ground outdoors? If it's a smash 'n grab.

Saint_Michael1 said...

The point of using his backpack or any other object to block the window while breaking it is NOT so that no glass hits the ground, but rather to protect the person against glass flying back at him. In any case this would block the glass from falling to the ground below. Not by design but as a consequence.
Since you say you agree that Rudy could have gained entrance through the window, you obviously do not agree with the Massei report- which found him doing so just about impossible. The thinking in the Massei report thought that he could only get a rock up there by carrying it with one hand while climbing with the other and they found that just about impossible. My whole point is that they excluded other ways for him to get a rock up there besides carrying it in one hand.
Let's see if this comes up at the appeal. It will be interesting to see how they deal with the issue.

Anonymous said...

The thing I don't understand is whether these judges are plain stupid or actually corrupt. Because it's hard to believe anybody could be that stupid. It's not the dismissing of a particular scenario (e.g. rock goes into room) that brings me to say this, but the taking up of a much more convoluted scenario (e.g. elaborate staged break-in) in its place to account for the initial dismissal. Again, are they really that stupid?

Saint_Michael1 said...

Personally I think the original trial judge (the one who wrote the report) was gullible and biased. It was like he had Amanda down as guilty and wrote the report to fit that belief. It was pathetic.

Anonymous said...

What is also very funny about Massei's report is how he keeps lavishing praise on Stefanoni's "competence and professionalism", dismissing out of hand the very idea that her methods were incorrect or could have caused contamination. Now we know the truth from the independent experts in the appeal - her methods WERE incorrect and COULD have caused contamination, just as the defence had argued all along. Massei's own competence and professionalism have been shown to be completely lacking.

Also remember that Massei was asked to allow an independent review of the evidence, but refused that request. He has lost all credibilty.

George Barwood said...

Another point is that the ledge outside the window is quite wide. If a rock was thrown from outside, I see no reason why there would be obvious traces of glass on the ground outside. No careful search was ever made, and no photographs were taken.

I think the police came up with the staged break-in theory quite late. I still haven't seen the actual testimony about glass on top of clothes, but I bet it is full of holes. Massei skipped over this evidence, possibly the most crucial dispute of the entire case. What we do know is that the photographs don't show this.

I don't quite agree with your theory about the rucksack Michael, it's possible, but I'm inclined to the simpler view that the shutters were probably open (or were first opened), and Guede chucked the stone from the road then waited to see if anyone came. When all was quiet, he then quickly climbed up and broke in.

Saint_Michael1 said...

Hello George- My theory about the knapsack blocking the window is really only one of several possibilities on Guede going through the window. The Massei report had the most ridiculous theory which the window was broken from the inside and anything else seemed impossible to them.
At this point however Amanda was found innocent of the staged break-in by the appeals court on Oct 3, 2011. How Guede got through the window is really a matter of opinion- it could have been done several different ways. Unfortunately, the original trial court could not see anything but a staged break-in from the inside- something which the appeals court threw out the window (pun intended).
The Massei report is about 90 percent garbage, and Judge Hellmann of the appeals court knew it.


This forum is not endorsed by Amanda Knox nor her family or legal council. It is an independent venture for the purpose of an open public forum on Amanda's pending appeal in Italy. It is for educational purposes only.