Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Dan O.]

This is one exercise where I consider Hendry erred, to grasp the corner of the dwelling only, would result in plummeting to the ground, but the rough roof tiles were able to be grasped when standing on the planter box, especially if standing on the rock for extra height.

After measuring the dimensions of that wall I simulated the reach for the shutter by standing at the edge and reaching for a mark that represented the center of the shutters. It was actually quite easy.

 

[Samson]

I think you are both wrong, or both partially right..

From the 5-chan video of climber we see that there is a slope on the other side of the retaining wall for the car park area. A rock thrown from this slope has the advantage that it is slightly closer to the window offsetting the disadvantage of being slightly lower. The thrower is far enough away from the window to not worry about rebounds and falling glass and still has the advantage being mostly below the retaining wall and out of sight from both the road and the occupants of the house.

However, Rudy could have chosen any of these positions. It is not necessary that he chooses the best option, only that options we consider are consistent with the evidence. We may be able to solve this dilemma With a physics model. There are constraints on the path and velocity of the rock which may rule out one or more of the options.

Any throw must generate velocity for the glass fragment to embed in hardwood. Maximum velocity for that rock is 28 mph.

 

[Samson]

After measuring the dimensions of that wall I simulated the reach for the shutter by standing at the edge and reaching for a mark that represented the center of the shutters. It was actually quite easy.

Interesting. I contemplated that photo for a long time, and concluded that the logistics were extremely dangerous by grasping the corner of the dwelling with palm and fingers, but I may be wrong. I thought hanging from the roof tiles looked way better.

 

[anglolawyer]

Vixen

You mentioned the 43 injuries upthread. Some PGP think this number is too many to have been inflicted by a single assailant. Well, I give you Joanne Yeates who was killed by Vincent Tabak single-handedly and guess what? He inflicted 43 injuries. Yes, that's right. 43.

You have overlooked the fact that all but one of the experts who testified before Massei found nothing inconsistent with a sole attacker being responsible.

 

[lonepinealex]

Ok, if I have this right, you are behind carbonjam72, Grinder, anglolawyer, sergei, and Kauffer on the runway. Vixen's purpose here is not to answer questions, it is to flood the thread with his random factoid generator. It is to suggest doubt, without demonstrating the need for it, now that the Italian Supreme Court has closed the case against AK and SR by exonerating them.

And no one has even brought up the lamp!

Excuse me! I asked about the checks and balances on the police - twice - about a week ago. Get in line you lot.

 

[Antony]

What do you mean, "Hellmann agreed the break-in was real"? Wasn't his MR rudely spiked by SC and his career cut very short?

If there's anything more ridiculous than the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy, it's appeal to Authority That's Been Superseded. It seems (elsewhere) to have escaped you that all the convicting judges now have the same legal status that Hellmann had after the 2013 ISC ruling.

I'll come back to Hellmann, as promised, when I've finished reading it.

Try leaving it to when the new ISC MR comes out. I think you will find that any argument you can make against Hellmann will no longer exist.

However, I doubt it was his place to say the crime did not happen.

IANAL, but there are people here with more knowledge than me who take the opposite view, and I find them more convincing than your judgement on this point.

 

[Samson]

If there's anything more ridiculous than the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy, it's Appeal to Authority that's been superseded. It seems (elsewhere) to have escaped you that all the convicting judges now have the same legal status that Hellmann had after the 2013 ISC ruling.


Try leaving it to when the new ISC MR comes out. I think you will find that any argument you can make against Hellmann will no longer exist.


IANAL, but there are people here with more knowledge than me who take the opposite view, and I find them more convincing than your judgement on this point.

An unfortunate acronym I might suggest, but I am not a lawyer either.
However, if Vixen is interested in what her antecedent generation think, I would be profoundly disappointed if I had a daughter that had read all the books, and concluded what she seems to have concluded.

 

[LondonJohn]

Not so. Switching off your phone is not enough.

This article here helps explain, in a different context.

http://www.travelandleisure.com/articles/how-to-prevent-cell-phone-roaming-fees

You obviously don't understand what this article actually says.

Look: if a handset is switched off, nothing is capable of communicating with that handset, that handset is incapable of communicating with anything else, and that handset is incapable of reading or storing data (eg GPS location data).

The article you've quoted is about handset registration overseas, coupled with the delivery of voicemail and text messages when the phone is actually switched on. It most assuredly doesn't say what you appear to think it says.

Incidentally, as others have also already pointed out, it's moot to be even talking about GPS in the context of the Knox/Sollecito trials, since none of the handsets involved had GPS capabilitiies anyhow. Given that, the only means of location tracking was via the crude method of base station triangulation (I'm guessing you don't know what that means, but I cannot be bothered to explain it), or the even cruder method (cf the prosecution in this case) of knowing which base station a phone was communicating with, and figuring that the phone must be within the coverage area for that base station.

And it all feeds back to the central point here: if Sollecito (and, by extension Knox) wanted to create a false alibi for their location, the totally obvious thing for them to have done would have been to leave their phones inside Sollecito's apartment, switched on and with signal coverage. That way, the network would have continued their connection with the same base station. If anyone had called or texted them, they could plausibly have said that they were dozing or having sex (or whatever), and hadn't noticed the incoming call/text.

 

[LondonJohn]

I think you are both wrong, or both partially right..

From the 5-chan video of climber we see that there is a slope on the other side of the retaining wall for the car park area. A rock thrown from this slope has the advantage that it is slightly closer to the window offsetting the disadvantage of being slightly lower. The thrower is far enough away from the window to not worry about rebounds and falling glass and still has the advantage being mostly below the retaining wall and out of sight from both the road and the occupants of the house.

However, Rudy could have chosen any of these positions. It is not necessary that he chooses the best option, only that options we consider are consistent with the evidence. We may be able to solve this dilemma With a physics model. There are constraints on the path and velocity of the rock which may rule out one or more of the options.

There appears to be a little confusion/misinterpretation of what I wrote. I didn't imply (nor did I intend to imply) that Guede necessarily threw the rock from below the window. Where I wrote "...drops back to the ground, throws a rock through the window....." I was making no call on whether the rock throw came from beneath the window or from the edge of the car parking area level with the window. I think either is possible and plausible, though I lean towards the latter option.

My narrative was solely intended to show that the evidence (and lack of evidence) is indeed entirely consistent with Guede, acting alone, breaking and entering via Romanelli's window. Exactly how he did it, we may never know (and I am pretty sure Guede will never admit to breaking in at all, far less saying exactly how he did it).

 

[LondonJohn]

Vixen

You mentioned the 43 injuries upthread. Some PGP think this number is too many to have been inflicted by a single assailant. Well, I give you Joanne Yeates who was killed by Vincent Tabak single-handedly and guess what? He inflicted 43 injuries. Yes, that's right. 43.

You have overlooked the fact that all but one of the experts who testified before Massei found nothing inconsistent with a sole attacker being responsible.

Exactly.

And two other points bear repeating here:

1) This "43 injuries" includes every single mark on Kercher's body. Thus, for example, where Guede's hand gripped Kercher's face and neck, there were five separate documented injuries, corresponding to the bruises left by the four fingers and thumb. 43 injuries accrue pretty quickly when collated in this way.

2) It's very likely that some of these 43 injuries were not even related to the attack and murder. Kercher had spent the previous evening getting drunk in a very crowded and very raucous nightclub/disco. It's easy to see how she could have picked up several small bruises or marks in such an environment. I myself have three small marks on my hands right now, and two noticeable small bruises on my legs - and I had a considerably quieter past couple of days than Kercher had.

 

[Mr Fied]

Having just scrolled through the last couple of days posts, which have been quite amusing. Could I get in line to ask Vixen a question?

Do you know of any evidence that proves Amanda and Raff were at the cottage at the time of the murder?

If so, would you be kind enough to share it. Previous posters such as Mach and platanov often claimed there was such evidence but never produced it. You would think that if these people were so convinced of the guilt of Amanda and Raff they would have shared all this secret evidence with the prosecution so that it could have been presented in court.

 

[Mr Fied]

Any actual evidence?

Deleted duplicate post

 

[Dan O.]

Interesting. I contemplated that photo for a long time, and concluded that the logistics were extremely dangerous by grasping the corner of the dwelling with palm and fingers, but I may be wrong. I thought hanging from the roof tiles looked way better.

It's not that far of a streach. Only about 1.5m from the corner to the center of the window as I recall. And you don't have to just hang out there. It is easy enough to put a foot on the window grate below or if you prefer smaller steps, step down just a bit from the porch to a rock below and from there to the lower window grate. Rudy need never let his sneakers touch the grass below.

 

[Antony]

Having just scrolled through the last couple of days posts, which have been quite amusing. Could I get in line to ask Vixen a question?

Do you know of any evidence that proves Amanda and Raff were at the cottage at the time of the murder?

If so, would you be kind enough to share it. Previous posters such as Mach and platanov often claimed there was such evidence but never produced it. You would think that if these people were so convinced of the guilt of Amanda and Raff they would have shared all this secret evidence with the prosecution so that it could have been presented in court.

To be fair, I don't think Vixen is one of those referring to the much-cited, but seldom specified "mountain of evidence". S/he came into this discussion proclaiming a "healthy scepticism of both sides" - then proceeded, in a curious crescendo pattern, to build up to pouring scorn on all the innocence arguments, while declining to make even a cursory examination of the prosecution claims.

So much for even-handed "scepticism".

 

[Strozzi]

There's the language of lur-ve. Lots of couples get by barely understanding each other's language. This is a red herring.

Vixen, you have an answer for everything, don't you, except the evidence raised on this board? If Amanda was working on beginning Italian and Rudi spoke/understood almost no English (phrases from songs and movies don't count), you suggest "the language of lur-ve" suffices to instruct Rudi to participate in a gruesome murder in a small room where only Rudi left evidence of the attack on the victim. Time out for you! If you gave an answer like that in kindergarten, teacher would have made you sit under the piano with me. ;

And if you tried to explain in kindergarten what you exactly meant by "the language of lur-ve" to control a man, Sister Napoleoni would have washed out your mouth with soap.

 

[Mr Fied]

To be fair, I don't think Vixen is one of those referring to the much-cited, but seldom specified "mountain of evidence". S/he came into this discussion proclaiming a "healthy scepticism of both sides" - then proceeded, in a curious crescendo pattern, to build up to pouring scorn on all the innocence arguments, while declining to make even a cursory examination of the prosecution claims.

So much for even-handed "scepticism".

She does come across as pretty much convinced of their guilt.

I just assumed that as she is a member of Mensa she would have to come to a conclusion of guilt based on proven facts and not from refuted evidence, tabloid stories, pure lies and gut feelings.

 

[Strozzi]

Vixen

You mentioned the 43 injuries upthread. Some PGP think this number is too many to have been inflicted by a single assailant. Well, I give you Joanne Yeates who was killed by Vincent Tabak single-handedly and guess what? He inflicted 43 injuries. Yes, that's right. 43.

You have overlooked the fact that all but one of the experts who testified before Massei found nothing inconsistent with a sole attacker being responsible.

What all but one of the experts conclude - that the injuries are consistent with an attack by one or more assailants - doesn't agree with Mignini's (and Vixen's) theory that the attack was for sure a group attack. Therefore, the conclusions of all but one of the experts must be wrong.

It is this sort of biased pro-conviction logic of the prosecution that led Chicago police detective Paul Cialino, who was sent to Perugia by CBS to look around and talk to people including Perugia police officers involved in the investigation, to describe the case against Amanda and Raffaele as "the railroad job from hell". Cialino is the interviewer who got crack Rome investigator Giobbi to explain on camera that when he learned that Amanda was "eating pizza" for dinner four nights after the murder of her housemate Giobbi knew she was guilty.

 

[Samson]

A video of an optomistic family, 6 years too soon. Deanna is just 20.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjNBB5vYK7g

 

[Kauffer]

Exactly.

And two other points bear repeating here:

1) This "43 injuries" includes every single mark on Kercher's body. Thus, for example, where Guede's hand gripped Kercher's face and neck, there were five separate documented injuries, corresponding to the bruises left by the four fingers and thumb. 43 injuries accrue pretty quickly when collated in this way.

2) It's very likely that some of these 43 injuries were not even related to the attack and murder. Kercher had spent the previous evening getting drunk in a very crowded and very raucous nightclub/disco. It's easy to see how she could have picked up several small bruises or marks in such an environment. I myself have three small marks on my hands right now, and two noticeable small bruises on my legs - and I had a considerably quieter past couple of days than Kercher had.

?

 

[Kauffer]

A video of an optomistic family, 6 years too soon. Deanna is just 20.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjNBB5vYK7g

Way before this, Amanda's diary in the first couple of weeks of her incarceration, heartbreakingly reveals a complete confidence that all the "misunderstandings" that put her in prison will be readily resolved and that the first event of substance to happen (and happen very soon) is going to be her release from prison to home confinement.