Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[platonov]

Cartwheel spinning backwards!

Of course, the staging was fictitious, an invention of the police and prosecutor.

The window was certainly broken by a rock thrown with considerable force from the outside.

It should be pointed out that because of the physics of a rock thrown through a glass-pane window, the glass shards must continue in the general direction of the rock's motion. The same phenomenon can be seen, for example, on a pool table, at the start of a game when the triangle of balls is "broken" by the cue ball. The underlying principle is called "conservation of momentum".

The concept is that the rock has a mass and a velocity; the velocity is directed into the room. Contact between the rock and the glass pane transfers energy to the glass from the rock, breaking the glass and forcing pieces of it to move generally in the same direction the rock was moving when it hit the pane. The rock is somewhat slowed down by the collision, of course. Overall, ignoring friction and any other non-conservative forces, the mass of the rock multiplied by the new velocity of the rock added (as vectors) to the masses of all the glass fragments, each fragment mass multiplied by its new velocity, will equal the mass of the rock multiplied by its original velocity (the speed and direction at the time of impact).

Apologies if I haven't explained this bit of Physics 101 clearly enough. An important point is that velocity includes both the speed of a moving object and its direction, and conservation of momentum means the vector sum of directions must remain unchanged before and after the collision (the breaking of the glass pane by the rock).

The point is, the police and prosecution maintaining that there should be glass outside if the rock was thrown from outside does not make physical sense. Even if the inner shutters were closed and loosely latched, the momentum of the rock thrown from outside would force them open and the glass fragments would be slowed down but still fall inside near the window or on the window casement.

The police and prosecution chose to ignore physics in order to pursue the wrongful prosecution of Amanda and Raffaele.

The adoption of reasoning contrary to well-known and fully accepted principles of science must be considered as a significant indication of the arbitrary nature of the Italian courts' reasonings in this case.

Wow

Not quite sure about your physics there. It might work like that in cartwheel world but not in the real world.
Hence the various groupie excuses (which were a recurring feature of the threads) involving police malpractice to explain why no glass fragments were found in the garden - once they grasped this basic point.

Ask Kevin Lowe or Kaosium to explain it – they are past masters of ‘broken window perplexity’.

Physics 101 indeed!

 

[Numbers]

duplicate.

 

[Numbers]

Wow

Not quite sure about your physics there. It might work like that in cartwheel world but not in the real world.
....
Physics 101 indeed!

And what is your expertise in physics?

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/momentum/u4l2b.cfm

Momentum Conservation Principle

One of the most powerful laws in physics is the law of momentum conservation. The law of momentum conservation can be stated as follows.

For a collision occurring between object 1 and object 2 in an isolated system, the total momentum of the two objects before the collision is equal to the total momentum of the two objects after the collision. That is, the momentum lost by object 1 is equal to the momentum gained by object 2.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Dubious forensics in the Maguire Seven and Birmingham Six cases

With respect to the Maguire Seven, "Police found no evidence of bomb-making, but they took swabs from under the fingernails of the family. Using later discredited forensic tests they said the family had handled the explosive nitroglycerine."

This gets more interesting. The tests for nitroglycerine were done in an...unconvincing...manner: "In the first place, the [thin layer chromatography] tests were carried out by an eighteen-year-old who had only been employed at RARDE for nine weeks, and who was described by the judge as 'an apprentice'. In a case of such importance, this was very odd. Further, in doing the tests, the youngster used up all the samples. This was contrary to routine scientific procedure under which samples are sub-divided so that confirmatory tests can be made."

"The prosecution pointed to tests of 916 people to demonstrate that this supposedly random sample did not yield equivalent results in the TLC test. However, at no stage was the defence allowed to scrutinise the results of these tests, nor to have them independently examined." See also this link.There are aspects of the chromatography in this case that remind me of the gas chromatography in the Patricia Stallings case. The failure to save or to record evidence is reminiscent of the immunochemistry in the Lindy Chamberlain case.

This link gives a good discussion of presumptive versus confirmatory testing over a wide range of examples: "In the case of the Birmingham Six, the forensic scientist stated that his analysis of swabs taken from hands, fingernails, and some belongings had tested positive for traces of nitroglycerine utilising the Griess test. The UK Court of Appeal held that this test should be used only as a preliminary test and that it must be supported by more sensitive follow-up tests undertaken in a laboratory. It was also found that the test procedure subsequently used may have been reacting to nitrite found in some soaps or the nitrocellulose polymer used in the manufacture of playing cards (Sangha, Roach & Moles 2010, pp.244-245)."

 

[Antony]

This reminds me a wee bit of the lab tests that were used to frame the Maguire Seven. Samples were taken from under the suspects' finger nails, and from their hands, and tested for explosives. The lab said it had generated positive results, but the reaction was later found to have been due to some sort of coating on playing cards they had been using to while away the time on a train journey.

No, you're thinking of the Birmingham Six case, when the police "solved" the case by intercepting the first boat train at Liverpool, hauling in a group of Irishmen and testing their hands for explosives. It was later shown that the cellulose from the playing cards they had been using gave a false positive for gelignite. Nobody ever explained why this evidence led to them being convicted not of making a bomb, but of planting it.

Annie Maguire was the aunt of Gerry Conlon (who died recently, aged 60) of the Guildford Four. She and 6 of his other relatives were convicted of bomb-making on the strength of another false positive for gelignite, on a kitchen glove. No bombs or other material was ever found at her house.

Correction: it was nitroglycerine, not gelignite.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

good practice in writing laboratory notebooks

One of the major problems identified by the subsequent public inquiry was that only selected results had been made available to the court. When the inquiry (conducted by Sir John May) asked for raw data to try to figure out what had been going on, the lab supplied only photocopies of selected pages of the lab notebooks (this was pre-computer). Only when May specifically requested the complete books to be turned over was that done, and in that he found all sorts of undeclared results that showed the scientists were basically at it.

After that, the lab switched from using bound laboratory notebooks to loose-leaf sheets torn off a pre-printed pad. I wonder why they did that? That's a whole other can of worms though.

Rolfe,

The point about good record-keeping needs to be emphasized. I teach students that they must use a pen when writing in a laboratory notebook, that they must use a bound notebook, and that they must not obliterate anything. IIRC Leila Schneps in a thread at IA defended Stefanoni's incorrect statement with respect to whether or not she had obtain a positive quantitation for certain samples (probably the knife) in the following way: She did not record it at the time, but much she later saw that the sample had produced DNA in the electropherogram and assumed it was positive. This explanation might be true, but it also illustrates why another rule of good notebook keeping is that it should be up-to-the-minute.

 

[Numbers]

Rolfe,

The point about good record-keeping needs to be emphasized. I teach students that they must use a pen when writing in a laboratory notebook, that they must use a bound notebook, and that they must not obliterate anything. IIRC Leila Schneps in a thread at IA defended Stefanoni's incorrect statement with respect to whether or not she had obtain a positive quantitation for certain samples (probably the knife) in the following way: She did not record it at the time, but much she later saw that the sample had produced DNA in the gram and assumed it was positive. This explanation might be true, but it also illustrates why another rule of good notebook keeping is that it should be up-to-the-minute.

If the record-keeping issue had arisen in the course on non-forensic scientific work, a conscientious supervisor or practitioner or detailed peer review would call for a retest (or two or more), with accurate and timely record keeping. For this kind of sloppiness and malpractice to be allowed in forensic work relating to a criminal charge is not acceptable (to use understatement).

 

[Desert Fox]

Rolfe,

The point about good record-keeping needs to be emphasized. I teach students that they must use a pen when writing in a laboratory notebook, that they must use a bound notebook, and that they must not obliterate anything. IIRC Leila Schneps in a thread at IA defended Stefanoni's incorrect statement with respect to whether or not she had obtain a positive quantitation for certain samples (probably the knife) in the following way: She did not record it at the time, but much she later saw that the sample had produced DNA in the electropherogram and assumed it was positive. This explanation might be true, but it also illustrates why another rule of good notebook keeping is that it should be up-to-the-minute.

In my job, if you make a mistake, you run a single line through it and initial it. That way people later can see the mistake you made. Trouble of course is that it is impossible not to make mistakes.

 

[Machiavelli]

The above is one of Machiavelli's many fraudulisms.

This is also round 5 in my time at this, of this particular game of whack-a-mole. The "the balcony is a logical point of entry for a burglar" meme. Apparently, this will never end.

Last time we went wrong this with Machiavelli, the view from the road, directly at the balcony was shown. And interestingly enough, there was a street light on the road that presumably provided full illumination on the balcony.

However, part of Machiavelli's fraudulism about this, is the pro-guilt lobby contention that the climb in through Filomena's window is impossible anyway. The rhetorical escape route from that claim, once debunked, is that a burglar would go the easier route, namely default to the balcony.

Bill the balcony is 35 meters away from the neared point of the road and in the dark, and there it will remain.

Filomena's window is by the road, illuminated and the most illogical point of entry.

 

[Planigale]

Wow

Not quite sure about your physics there. It might work like that in cartwheel world but not in the real world.
Hence the various groupie excuses (which were a recurring feature of the threads) involving police malpractice to explain why no glass fragments were found in the garden - once they grasped this basic point.

Ask Kevin Lowe or Kaosium to explain it – they are past masters of ‘broken window perplexity’.

Physics 101 indeed!

If you were familiar with the evidence you would know that empirical simulations showed that no glass would be deposited in the garden if the glass was broken from the outside but would be if it was broken from the inside as suggested by the prosecution. therefore the lack of glass in the garden proves that the window was broken by a stone from outside.

 

[carbonjam72]

Bill the balcony is 35 meters away from the neared point of the road and in the dark, and there it will remain.

Filomena's window is by the road, illuminated and the most illogical point of entry.

It may not be the one you find most logical, but it is the one Rudy used. You can tell by the broken window, and that Rudy stepped in glass that left a fragment in his sneaker print in Meredith's blood, as found by the defense.

Your problem Mach, is that you start from the assumption that Amanda and Raf are guilty, and that's why you have to invent scenarios to support your preconceived ideas.

If you start with the evidence, its an easy case.

If you want to know why Rudy chose Filomena's window, you need to ask Rudy. AND, BY THE WAY, was there a similar metal grating under the balcony you believe Rudy should have used to gain access? Because using the metal grating as a ladder to climb to a second story to break and enter, after throwing a rock through the window to test if anyone's home, is after all Rudy's MO.

And while we're at it, why wasn't the glass tested to see which direction the glass was broken from? Again, an easy test that could disprove the prosecution's case - and it doesn't get done - the prosecution doesn't want it done, the civil parties don't want it done, and the judges don't want it done.

Welcome to the Monkey House.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli's manufacture of a knife on a bedsheet, and claiming compatibility with his theory is not weak....

..... it is fraudulant.

What big words...
And so tell, what part or measurement in the picture is wrong?

 

[lonepinealex]

Bill the balcony is 35 meters away from the neared point of the road and in the dark, and there it will remain.

Filomena's window is by the road, illuminated and the most illogical point of entry.

Pics please.

 

[Machiavelli]

It may not be the one you find most logical, but it is the one Rudy used. You can tell by the broken window, and that Rudy stepped in glass that left a fragment in his sneaker print in Meredith's blood, as found by the defense.

Your problem Mach, is that you start from the assumption that Amanda and Raf are guilty, and that's why you have to invent scenarios to support your preconceived ideas.

If you start with the evidence, its an easy case.

If you want to know why Rudy chose Filomena's window, you need to ask Rudy. AND, BY THE WAY, was there a similar metal grating under the balcony you believe Rudy should have used to gain access? Because using the metal grating as a ladder to climb to a second story to break and enter(...).

Rudy's alleged MO would be to use the metal grating of the downstairs door at the back to reach the balcony, and break in through the windows not visible from the street (as the newspapers correctly reports btw) just like the other true burglars did as they broke into the cottage.

But in fact if you believe he entered though Filomena's windows, rather than asking him, you should prove it.
I think there is evidence it is a staging.

 

[Machiavelli]

Pics please.

I suggest you try Google maps and streetwiew.

If you can't, then I'll look for what I have.

 

[Numbers]

What big words...
And so tell, what part or measurement in the picture is wrong?

All of it. It is a fraud.

Here is a real photo of what stain may be left when a red liquid (somewhat viscous) is placed on a knife, the knife is placed on a paper towel, lifted off, and the resulting stain photographed.

Mach is misstating the evidence by his BS mock-up, ignoring empirical knowledge (how images are made by, for example, letter-press or block print).

I went so far as to do some experiments on a kitchen knife coated with watered-down spaghetti sauce (a blood substitute in this experiment). Here's a photo from the experiment; the handle is on the left, the cutting edge of the blade to the top. The handle (part toward blade) is more in contact with the paper towel under the knife, and creates an approximately rectangular stain. The bump on the handle near the blade is real; it's part of the grip design of the handle.

There's a gap in the stain between the handle and the blade, because the contact points are, in the ideal limits, the tip of the blade and the handle section nearest the blade. The stain is larger because of the relatively low viscosity of the watered spaghetti; it flows. And the blade may bend to a degree.

 

[Bill Williams]

What big words...
And so tell, what part or measurement in the picture is wrong?

The whole pic is fraudulent. You need to supply a detailed description of how you assembled it. It needs to start with the raw pic of the knife you started with.

The pic is a fraud, mainly because of the rhetorical method you apply after the fact. You want detractors to prove it is fraudulent before you've demonstrated something other than, "I measured".

Oh wait..... this is the approach you take with ALL the evidence. You assert a compatibility and require those who don't fall for your method to prove otherwise.

Just like the convicting judges. You're not fooling anyone.

 

[lonepinealex]

I suggest you try Google maps and streetwiew.

If you can't, then I'll look for what I have.

I have, but not night-time ones that show how they were lit. If you have those pics, please provide them and the argument will be over.

 

[Machiavelli]

Iff you think they are guilty, fine, but be honest. If your case is weak in areas, admit that. Part of the problem I have with Machiavellian's stance is that he/she will not admit to being weak in any way.

I think the case is sound and closed beyond reasonable doubt. I can't see it as weak. It is iron-clad as for the amount of evidence.

There is lack of information on certain areas about events, but this is normal and must nor be confused with weakness of a case. A case does not equate to a scenario or a narrative or timeline of events, this needs to be clear.

 

[Bill Williams]

I suggest you try Google maps and streetwiew.

If you can't, then I'll look for what I have.

Make sure you post the pic which shows the balcony openly exposed to the road, with the illuminating street light.