Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

Then can you solve mine please?

I don't know exactly what they are.

Ps: Went back and found a post by Planigale, which makes no sense to me. I don't see how the glass distribution on the floor can have a relevance whatsoever.

 

[Bill Williams]

I don't have any problem with the glass pattern.

You answer is a non-answer, worthy of Nencini.

This whole thing would be laughable if there were not two people's future liberty on the line.

Machiavelli is asked to explain how the glass could be strewn in exactly the manner one would expect if it had been the result of a rock thrown through it....

All Machiavelli says, "I don't have any problem with the glass pattern."

Wow. If it had been the kitchen knife and the bedsheet blood-outline of a knife, he would have fired up the photoshop and forged an equivalence.

So now Machiavelli has no problem with a glass pattern that means if a result of a staging,someone took the time to sort through the glass.

They should not convict Sollecito and Knox, they should recruit them into covert spy work!!!!!!! Once again, Knox and Sollecito have to be world-class felons to pull this off, while at the same time being gormless,awkward liars.

This is embarrassing. What what does one say to someone who simply refuses to be embarrassed?

 

[Bill Williams]

I don't know exactly what they are.

Ps: Went back and found a post by Planigale, which makes no sense to me. I don't see how the glass distribution on the floor can have a relevance whatsoever.

LOL! Apparently neither did the PLE in their investigation of that particular part of the crime.

Oh wait, they never investigated that part of the crime. Never mind.

 

[Machiavelli]

LOL! Apparently neither did the PLE in their investigation of that particular part of the crime.

Oh wait, they never investigated that part of the crime. Never mind.

In my opinion it is rather obvious that a rock went through the glass.

The problem would be when this happened.

 

[platonov]

An overview

He first climbs up and opens the outer shutter, then climbs down and throws the rock thru the window and forcing the inner shutter open then climbs back up and perches of the sill while putting his arm thru the broken window to open it, opens the window and he's in.

Correct?

Correct insofar as that’s the defence version of the lone wolf break in theory. Dan O had some story about a long stick once IIRC.

What I was referring to was the confusion all the groupies seemingly have with the prosecution argument.
They seem to think that the prosecution argued that the rock was thrown from inside the room outward into the garden
As opposed to : That the window was broken from within the room with the outer shutters closed – easily done as the window opens inward.


IIIRC the origin of this confusion is one of the lunatic fringe FOA sites.
Charllie Wilkes, Kevin Lowe, Kaosium etc etc etc all had difficulty with this – it seems to be a mystery to them how one could break a window from within the room even after it’s been explained.
IIRC halides1 declared this was a 'novel suggestion' when it was first explained to him - I kid you not

Now we see Numbers and Planigale repeating this stuff 4 years later.
Furthermore Numbers seems unaware that if a window is broken by hoofing a rock from the outside you would still get glass in the garden – it doesn’t all magically fly into the room. Check out the Physics 101 post!!
A topic we may have to revisit.

And planigale – well here the confusion is compounded by the fact that she apparently argues that as she couldn’t figure out how the break-in was staged from within the room then obviously neither could the prosecution & Wait for it – that Massei came up with this solution A solution I maintain a 9 yr old could work out.

Then as night follows day once the simple solution is explained the groupies want to discuss glass distribution within the room.
[Here platonov puts his foot down and there is much indignation]

It’s frankly hilarious in a Forest Gump kind of way although the repetition is surreal.
It’s as if they are all following the same playbook but without understanding any of it.

ETA
I left out some good stuff. The nail in the outer wall that you might expect a climber to snag on in the dark – that was put there by RG to aid his climb or used by him in the climb for support. At one stage there was even a missing nail invented which came loose when RG put his weight on it or something.

 

[tsig]

"Correct" in the sense that this is Judge Massei's recreation. Judge Massei did not necessarily argue the impossibility of the climb, but that Rudy would not have done the climb three times.

What the Channel 5 recreation shows is that someone needn't climb up and down three times. The recreation showed that the shutters could easily be manipulated while standing on the top bar of the window-cover below.

None of this is rocket science. The real disturbing thing is that it took a television documentary, six years following the events, to show what Judge Massei should have allowed in his trial - a re-creation, rather than a thought experiment.

Did the re creator actually reach in thru a broken window, open in and go in?

 

[Bill Williams]

Did the re creator actually reach in thru a broken window, open in and go in?

Nope. The current owner of the cottage has barred that particular window, as evidenced in the documentary re-creation.

Probably to prevent break-ins through that window.

 

[Numbers]

It has relation with the Kercher case at all.
....

Justice is not an authoritarian value, by my standards.

{Highlighting added to quote.}

I am assuming that your statement that I highlighted was intended to state:

"It has no relation with the Kercher case at all."

Regarding the rest of your post, all those items regarding the Italian government, whether or not true and correct, are primarily and rightly the concern and responsibility of the people of Italy.

 

[Bill Williams]

In my opinion it is rather obvious that a rock went through the glass.

The problem would be when this happened.

You should then try to forge another power-point on this subject. You seem to think that the prosecutors and police need help in solving this crime, what with all the new stuff you push here that they never pushed.

 

[Numbers]

Correct insofar as that’s the defence version of the lone wolf break in theory. Dan O had some story about a long stick once IIRC.

What I was referring to was the confusion all the groupies seemingly have with the prosecution argument.
They seem to think that the prosecution argued that the rock was thrown from inside the room outward into the garden
As opposed to : That the window was broken from within the room with the outer shutters closed – easily done as the window opens inward.


IIIRC the origin of this confusion is one of the lunatic fringe FOA sites.
Charllie Wilkes, Kevin Lowe, Kaosium etc etc etc all had difficulty with this – it seems to be a mystery to them how one could break a window from within the room even after it’s been explained.
IIRC halides1 declared this was a 'novel suggestion' when it was first explained to him - I kid you not

Now we see Numbers and Planigale repeating this stuff 4 years later.
Furthermore Numbers seems unaware that if a window is broken by hoofing a rock from the outside you would still get glass in the garden – it doesn’t all magically fly into the room.
A topic we may have to revisit.

And planigale – well here the confusion is compounded by the fact that she apparently argues that as she couldn’t figure out how the break-in was staged from within the room then obviously neither could the prosecution & Wait for it – that Massei came up with this solution A solution I maintain a 9 yr old could work out.

Then as night follows day once the simple solution is explained the groupies want to discuss glass distribution within the room.
[Here platonov puts his foot down and there is much indignation]

It’s frankly hilarious in a Forest Gump kind of way although the repetition is surreal.
It’s as if they are all following the same playbook but without understanding any of it.

{Highlighting added to quote.}

The windows in question are somewhat inset into the room by some of the thickness of the wall and mounted on a casement. Check where the hinges of the windows, which open inwardly, are located.

Some fragments of the glass pane can fall essentially vertically. Because the glass fragments into shards, not all of the shards receive the same velocity from the impact of the rock. Some fragments distant from the point of collision break with near-zero forward velocity.

 

[tsig]

Nope. The current owner of the cottage has barred that particular window, as evidenced in the documentary re-creation.

Probably to prevent break-ins through that window.

Then it wasn't a re-creation of the event.

 

[tsig]

Correct insofar as that’s the defence version of the lone wolf break in theory. Dan O had some story about a long stick once IIRC.

What I was referring to was the confusion all the groupies seemingly have with the prosecution argument.
They seem to think that the prosecution argued that the rock was thrown from inside the room outward into the garden
As opposed to : That the window was broken from within the room with the outer shutters closed – easily done as the window opens inward.


IIIRC the origin of this confusion is one of the lunatic fringe FOA sites.
Charllie Wilkes, Kevin Lowe, Kaosium etc etc etc all had difficulty with this – it seems to be a mystery to them how one could break a window from within the room even after it’s been explained.
IIRC halides1 declared this was a 'novel suggestion' when it was first explained to him - I kid you not

Now we see Numbers and Planigale repeating this stuff 4 years later.
Furthermore Numbers seems unaware that if a window is broken by hoofing a rock from the outside you would still get glass in the garden – it doesn’t all magically fly into the room. Check out the Physics 101 post!!
A topic we may have to revisit.

And planigale – well here the confusion is compounded by the fact that she apparently argues that as she couldn’t figure out how the break-in was staged from within the room then obviously neither could the prosecution & Wait for it – that Massei came up with this solution A solution I maintain a 9 yr old could work out.

Then as night follows day once the simple solution is explained the groupies want to discuss glass distribution within the room.
[Here platonov puts his foot down and there is much indignation]

It’s frankly hilarious in a Forest Gump kind of way although the repetition is surreal.
It’s as if they are all following the same playbook but without understanding any of it.

ETA
I left out some good stuff. The nail in the outer wall that you might expect a climber to snag on in the dark – that was put there by RG to aid his climb or used by him in the climb for support. At one stage there was even a missing nail invented which came loose when RG put his weight on it or something.

Do you have a link to a picture of the window? The sharpness of the glass was mentioned earlier and I got to wondering how someone could stick their arm thru a broken window and not be cut.

 

[Diocletus]

Do you have a link to a picture of the window? The sharpness of the glass was mentioned earlier and I got to wondering how someone could stick their arm thru a broken window and not be cut.

It's tricky, but if you stick your arm through the spot that the rock went through, you should be ok.

 

[Numbers]

{Highlighting added to quote.}

The windows in question are somewhat inset into the room by some of the thickness of the wall and mounted on a casement. Check where the hinges of the windows, which open inwardly, are located.

Some fragments of the glass pane can fall essentially vertically. Because the glass fragments into shards, not all of the shards receive the same velocity from the impact of the rock. Some fragments distant from the point of collision break with near-zero forward velocity.

And of course, some of the glass pane relatively distant from the point of collision does not fragment at all, and may (and in this case, did) remain in the window frame. It may be cracked, because cracks propagate readily in glass, which is brittle under ordinary (room temperature and pressure) conditions.

 

[toto]

In my opinion it is rather obvious that a rock went through the glass.

The problem would be when this happened.

Well, you wouldn't want to make a noise after you had murdered someone would you?

 

[carbonjam72]

It's tricky, but if you stick your arm through the spot that the rock went through, you should be ok.

Am I mistaken, or did they not find blood and hair on the window sill, which Stef's lab managed to not be able to test, and then lose the samples?

Tsig, assuming this is correct, would you still consider that against the defense, and suggestive of staging, since the samples were never formally entered as evidence, even though we know they existed?

 

[Machiavelli]

{Highlighting added to quote.}

I am assuming that your statement that I highlighted was intended to state:

"It has no relation with the Kercher case at all."

Correct.

Regarding the rest of your post, all those items regarding the Italian government, whether or not true and correct, are primarily and rightly the concern and responsibility of the people of Italy.

Indeed all features of Italy are. It was you who decided to enter the merits of judgment about Italian things. You called some Italian things "fascist", it was a terrain of your choice.

 

[anglolawyer]

I don't know exactly what they are.

Ps: Went back and found a post by Planigale, which makes no sense to me. I don't see how the glass distribution on the floor can have a relevance whatsoever.

What a disappointment! I was hoping you would say 'it's too soon' . You have no sense of humour.

Anyway, you say you see no problem and then it turns out you don't see the relevance! The relevance is this: the glass spray shows the rock was thrown from outside (for example by Guede).

 

[Machiavelli]

Well, you wouldn't want to make a noise after you had murdered someone would you?

Not even before, actually. Neither before burglarizing a home.

 

[Machiavelli]

What a disappointment! I was hoping you would say 'it's too soon' . You have no sense of humour.

Anyway, you say you see no problem and then it turns out you don't see the relevance! The relevance is this: the glass spray shows the rock was thrown from outside (for example by Guede).

Or by a stager. Where did you think the rock came from?