Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Desert Fox]

Good question. It parallels another one:

So how did Knox and Sollecito simulate a break in commit a vicious, bloody murder, in a small room, with a struggling victim, but leave no evidence of themselves?

That has always been my biggest issue and one no pro guilt poster appears to ever address in any meaningful way.

I just had four line handlers in my small security office waiting for a ship to dock. If they started fighting, everybody likely would have fallen down and my office is larger than that bedroom I believe.

 

[anglolawyer]

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

Forgive me Mach. Are you agreeing the rock was thrown from outside? If so, great. Explain it to Platonov will you?

 

[Bill Williams]

How could someone break the window from inside and then move the glass around and not get cut or get glass fragments on their clothes? How could they bring in a big stone from the muddy garden and not leave mud or glass in the room? I assume the extremely competent Italian forensics looked for glass fragments on Knox's and Sollecito's clothes and did not find any. I assume they looked for fingerprints and DNA and failed to find any. I assume they looked for mud and grass. So how did Knox and Sollecito simulate a break in but leave no evidence of themselves?

Good question. It parallels another one:

So how did Knox and Sollecito simulate a break in commit a vicious, bloody murder, in a small room, with a struggling victim, but leave no evidence of themselves?

The devious Knox/Sollecito overplanned this whole thing. They should have known that the less evidence of themselves at the crime, the more likely they are guilty.....

...... well, to some anyway. Remember the horrible truth: absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.

Because when you add in "all the other evidence", and all this other evidence betrays their absence, then Knox/Sollecito should have known this and left a full forensic footprint.....

.... because Italy then would have found them innocent.

Machiavelli is forging creating a photoshopped image to illustrate this point.

 

[anglolawyer]

You just do not get it do you! Mechanics 101. This is nothing to do with glass on a wondow sill, but the observed distribution of glass fragments throughout the room.

It's a blind spot, Planigale. It's really weird.

 

[Kaosium]

No, I responded on this several yrs ago

And if you do a search for a phrase along the lines of ......
“cant work out a problem that might be given to a 9yr old as part of a 'learning development' test but then want to go on to discuss 'glass distribution' and we are supposed to keep a straight face”
.........You may find other replies.

The glass distribution pattern in Filomena's room makes hash of that theory in Massei. Massei claims the inner shutter acting as a 'shield' gives an "adequate" explanation for the distribution of the glass, that's nonsense. You can't get those pieces that flew into the room as far as the blue rug ("Q") from bouncing them off the inner shutter and at the same time the pieces that fell down and onto the sill, the window frame would have had to be in two places at once for that scenario to work.

Oh, and in response to another of your posts (or links to older posts) there are pictures of the outer wall by the window showing marks and indeed even a nail hole with no nail in it. The prosecution claimed these marks and holes don't exist, despite there being photographic proof disproving their claim. How seriously can one take their claim that there was no glass on the ground beneath the window when they didn't even take photos necessary to establish that claim and relied upon two police just saying they walked around and didn't see anything but got grass and water on their shoes? That doesn't prove anything. Why didn't they attempt to prove their contention that there 'must' be glass on the ground from backspray, sufficient to clear that wide sill? Note in the opening seconds of the defense demonstration how the inner shutter in that recreation moves in with the breaking of the window without even being contacted by the rock, that shows how the vortex created by the breaking of the window would push inward--the same direction the rock was traveling--and throw those small glass particles into the room, as was the case in Filomena's room.

 

[Bill Williams]

Pmop57 on IIP has done yeoman's work in parsing the various court rulings, and is a must-read in understanding the wrongful convictions of AK and RS.

Here, pmop57 shows that in the appeals' level hearing for Rudy Guede, where neither Knox nor Sollecito were represented, the court finds evidence incriminating them. This laid the groundwork for the "judicial truth" that AK and RS are guilty which Cassazione foisted off on Nencini's court, before they'd even made it to an evidentiary-trial themselves.

Italics are a snippet from the motivations report, and the rest is pmop57's comment....

Borsini - Bellardi - Appeal Trial Rudy Guede
What really happened in that apartment located on the first floor of 7 Via della Pergola in the time period 21:00 and 24:00 of 1 November 2007, the timing, the means, the circumstances of the brutal homicide could only have been revealed, at least in demonstrating a sense of compassion towards the poor victim, by the accused; that instead have preferred to fill their statements, made on various occasions, with lies, reticence, back-peddling, half-truths, insinuations, unlikely perspectives, thinly veiled accusations against each other; and so without it, it is necessary to rely on the elements that emerge from the court proceedings.

This Court already in the indroduction of its motivation report of the sentencing of Rudy Guede started blaming AK and RS who have not been party of this trial, not on the 'banc des accusés'!​

 

[platonov]

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.

Not to hand – it’s in the original cartwheel thread I’d imagine.
As, unlike most of the groupies, I can easily visualize inward opening windows with external shutters I haven’t looked at it in years.

 

[Kaosium]

Not to hand – it’s in the original cartwheel thread I’d imagine.
As, unlike most of the groupies, I can easily visualize inward opening windows with external shutters I haven’t looked at it in years.

I've posted it twice in the last day, follow the links, one is just a few posts above your post that I'm responding to.

 

[platonov]

You just do not get it do you! Mechanics 101. This is nothing to do with glass on a wondow sill, but the observed distribution of glass fragments throughout the room.

My deepest apologies I should have made clear the last line (in italics below) of the linked post was what the reference was to.

This talk of infinites and ballistics given the perplexity over the fact that windows can open inwards is on on a par with the 'truther' freefall physics.

As to the rest of your replies - Don’t you get embarrassed posting this stuff?
Obviously not it seems so do carry on.

Let me know when you have proven that I agree with you

 

[platonov]

The glass distribution pattern in Filomena's room makes hash of that theory in Massei. Massei claims the inner shutter acting as a 'shield' gives an "adequate" explanation for the distribution of the glass, that's nonsense. You can't get those pieces that flew into the room as far as the blue rug ("Q") from bouncing them off the inner shutter and at the same time the pieces that fell down and onto the sill, the window frame would have had to be in two places at once for that scenario to work.

Oh, and in response to another of your posts (or links to older posts) there are pictures of the outer wall by the window showing marks and indeed even a nail hole with no nail in it. The prosecution claimed these marks and holes don't exist, despite there being photographic proof disproving their claim. How seriously can one take their claim that there was no glass on the ground beneath the window when they didn't even take photos necessary to establish that claim and relied upon two police just saying they walked around and didn't see anything but got grass and water on their shoes? That doesn't prove anything. Why didn't they attempt to prove their contention that there 'must' be glass on the ground from backspray, sufficient to clear that wide sill? Note in the opening seconds of the defense demonstration how the inner shutter in that recreation moves in with the breaking of the window without even being contacted by the rock, that shows how the vortex created by the breaking of the window would push inward--the same direction the rock was traveling--and throw those small glass particles into the room, as was the case in Filomena's room.

Now now Kaosium. Please desist.

Let planigale, Numbers, Bill & anglo have their day in the sun

BTW What do you think of planigales new theory.

 

[Kaosium]

Now now Kaosium. Please desist.

Let planigale, Numbers, Bill & anglo have their day in the sun

BTW What do you think of planigales new theory.

You mean that it was Massei that constructed that idiot theory on the breaking of the glass and not the prosecution?

Do you know that she's wrong? She sounds pretty confident and you must know that Massei invented his own scenarios when he didn't like the prosecution theory--one example is the actual commission of the murder. It wasn't the prosecution that suggested a rape scenario where Amanda and Raffaele sided with Rudy, that was a Giancarlo Massei original production.

I'd tread carefully when Planigale sounds confident like that, the sciency-types don't usually make such declarative statements unless they know the truth of the matter.

 

[platonov]

You mean that it was Massei that constructed that idiot theory on the breaking of the glass and not the prosecution?

Do you know that she's wrong? She sounds pretty confident and you must know that Massei invented his own scenarios when he didn't like the prosecution theory--one example is the actual commission of the murder. It wasn't the prosecution that suggested a rape scenario where Amanda and Raffaele sided with Rudy, that was a Massei original production.

I'd tread carefully when Planigale sounds confident like that, the sciency-types don't usually make such declarative statements unless they know the truth of the matter.

Oh so you agree

Excellent. This latest iteration of 'broken window perplexity' may yet plumb new depths. Who'd a thunk it .

ps Don't mention 'backspray' again - it may cause an upset

 

[Machiavelli]

Forgive me Mach. Are you agreeing the rock was thrown from outside? If so, great. Explain it to Platonov will you?

Platonov and Massei seem to have solved the enigma some years ago.
The rock was thrown from the outer side if the panel through the glass and against the inner wooden panel towards the inside of the room. If the thrower was standing inside the room and sticking an arm or was standing outside in the garden, this I can't tell.
Something I can tell is that the rock has bowled on top of the clothes scattered on the floor.

 

[Desert Fox]

Platonov and Massei seem to have solved the enigma some years ago.
The rock was thrown from the outer side if the panel through the glass and against the inner wooden panel towards the inside of the room. If the thrower was standing inside the room and sticking an arm or was standing outside in the garden, this I can't tell.
Something I can tell is that the rock has bowled on top of the clothes scattered on the floor.

You have experimental data to support this, right?

 

[Machiavelli]

As has been argued, making a lot of noise with breaking a window has the advantage of seeing if anybody is home. Granted, I own a firearm (which is much harder in Europe generally) but breaking a window is sure to get me to grab my weapon and turn on lights.

Besides the fact that not many burglars may agree with your theory that entering a home garden and provocate alarm to see the reaction is a good idea, it would have anyway the same disadvantage and risk of making noise to stage a burglary (maybe greater, as you pointed out). In fact braking a window to stage a burglary also has advantages, if you want to put the blame on a thieve and make it look as a burglary.
Both braking a window before or after have advantages and disadvantages, it just makes no sense to pick and imagine one argument or another in isolation.
What could make sense is to have a theory that is internally consistent. For example decide if the alleged burglar is agile quick expert and rational, or awkward.

 

[Machiavelli]

You have experimental data to support this, right?

The experimental datum is that the rock was on a paper bag torn that was torn apart and has fallen on top of clothes on the floor.

 

[Desert Fox]

Besides the fact that not many burglars may agree with your theory that entering a home garden and provocate alarm to see the reaction is a good idea, it would have anyway the same disadvantage and risk of making noise to stage a burglary (maybe greater, as you pointed out). In fact braking a window to stage a burglary also has advantages, if you want to put the blame on a thieve and make it look as a burglary.
Both braking a window before or after have advantages and disadvantages, it just makes no sense to pick and imagine one argument or another in isolation.
What could make sense is to have a theory that is internally consistent. For example decide if the alleged burglar is agile quick expert and rational, or awkward.

All you wrote here is maybe it was staged. . . .You do not convict on maybe.

 

[Kaosium]

Oh so you agree

Excellent. This latest iteration of 'broken window perplexity' may yet plumb new depths. Who'd a thunk it .

ps Don't mention 'backspray' again - it may cause an upset

I'm saying I don't know (for certain). I have reason to believe it was the prosecution, but nothing definitive and must admit it would explain some things if in fact it was Massei who concocted that theory. At the same time it would likely make the prosecution look all sorts of stupid, because one thing I do know is they tried to present 'evidence' that there wasn't any glass outside beneath the window and that the outer shutters were closed at the time the window was broken. That would mean they still had the rock being thrown from the inside, but it would almost certainly be a less probable scenario than Massei's easily disproven one (glass shards on the blue rug) and might even be that Raffaele and or Amanda threw the rock the other way through the window....

 

[Desert Fox]

The experimental datum is that the rock was on a paper bag torn that was torn apart and has fallen on top of clothes on the floor.

I will take that as "No, I have no experimental data but I cannot admit that."

 

[Dougm]

Platonov and Massei seem to have solved the enigma some years ago.
The rock was thrown from the outer side if the panel through the glass and against the inner wooden panel towards the inside of the room. If the thrower was standing inside the room and sticking an arm or was standing outside in the garden, this I can't tell.
Something I can tell is that the rock has bowled on top of the clothes scattered on the floor.

This is absurd. No matter where the "thrower" was standing, the glass would not have flown behind them, several feet into the room.