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 STAGED BREAK-IN"
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.
AMANDA'S ALIBI & THE WITNESSES
Pages 77-86 of the English translation goes into why the judges believe Amanda does not have a credible alibi and was actually telling lies about her whereabouts the evening of November 1st (night of the murder). The lack of critical thinking and speculation by the judges continues:
The judges start by giving Amanda's account, which is that she and Raffaele did not leave his apartment that night and did not leave until the following morning in which Amanda states she did not get up until about 10am and which shortly after 10am she went to her own house to shower and change her clothes.
The judges use the testimony of several witnesses and computer and phone records- and a lot of single minded speculation- to 'prove' their findings.
Witness Antonio Curatolo- a homeless 52 year old man- the judges believe is credible. The report states that he stated he saw the two defendants at the park in front of the University of Foreigners from about 9:30pm till about 11pm on the night of the murder. He was reading a magazine and happened to look up and says he saw Amanda and Raffaele in the park, and he continued reading but would occasionally look up and they would still be there- up until about 10:45 to 11:30 (I guess the judges allowed a short range in the time as maybe park bums don't have a watch). So, the judges, while using this testimony to shoot holes in the fact that Amanda stated they did not leave the house that night, the judges seem to overlook the fact that it was in the time frame they were observed in the park that they were suppose to be at Amanda's killing Meredith. The time of death of Meredith has been placed between 9-11pm, with the time of 10-11pm the most agreed upon estimate. Enough said about this witness.
Marco Quintavalle- store owner who claimed to see Amanda at his store the morning after the murder. The judges state they believe his testimony is credible. Marco claimed to have seen Amanda waiting for him to open his store at 7:45am (remember she said she didn't get up that morning until about 10am). Well I too might have found his testimony credible if it wasn't for the fact that he did not say anything to the police who questioned him some days after the murder, but comes forward a year later after he was persuaded to by a newspaper reporter. The judges do not seem to have a problem with that. Maybe it's just me.
Phone calls and the computer
Now Amanda had stated that when she got up around 10am, Raffaele was still in bed and that they slept through the night. However to prove Amanda a liar the judges state that Raffaele actually turned his computer on a little before 6am and turned his cell phone on about the same time. Since no one had school that day and did not have to be up that early it sounds like he got up and then went back to bed. Has anyone ever gotten up early on a day off and gone back to bed shortly after? Besides- Raffaele's father called him at 9:30 that morning and stated he sounded like he was still in bed. It sounds to me like he was probably sleeping at 10am like Amanda said- According to his father he was half asleep at 9:30am. I guess the judges didn't think about a person waking up early and then going back to bed on your day off- I wonder why?
Now the report continues with a heading that reads: Amanda's Significant Inconsistencies:
The major point the judges hash out on this particular topic is that Amanda states she went home shortly after she got up that morning for the purpose of taking a shower and changing her clothes. The judges state in the report: "The reason given by Amanda Knox for which she would return to the house in Via della Pergola 7... does not appear credible". The major reason they give for not finding it credible is, and I quote "that she had already showered and washed her hair the night before at Raffaele's house, and therefore hardly credible that she needed to repeat both these actions". Now that statement by the judges is just plain.... incredible. Who does not take a shower the next morning after having sex the night before??? And then the judges state she could have very well taken her clothes with her to Raffaele's and then there would be not need to go home to change. Well let me take a wild guess- how about most women like to have all their stuff around them- make-up included.
This whole subject brought up by the judges with their reasoning is clearly unfair and unfounded by any logic- it even defies common sense. And due to this reasoning the judges believe Amanda Knox has no credible alibi and is a liar. What I find incredible is the entire motivation report written by these judges.
I am not trying to be rude or disrespectful to these Italian judges but one does have to state the facts- This report is the thinking that put Amanda Knox in prison with a sentence of 26 years. The truth about this case is long overdue.
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.