The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 29

[TruthCalls]

I entirely agree with your overarching point here.

But on specifics, your line-of-sight diagrams are incorrect: the relevant line of sight in respect of that side elevation of the house would actually be out of the page towards the viewer - not sideways up to the right (if, that is, we are assuming that this (mythical) person in the bathroom was trying to see up towards the car port area and not up towards the area just in front of the porch of the upper (girls') cottage).

It's all moot for two reasons anyhow: firstly, nobody looking out of any window at any height in that lower cottage could possibly see anything other than the tiniest edge of the front of the car port (OK: they could see approaching cars' lights, but they could have just as easily seen those simply standing on the floor...); and secondly, there's absolutely no evidence that anyone actually did even go into that lower (boys') cottage on the evening/night of the murder.

I completely agree, but without producing a 3D type model, all I could do was use the side elevation to make the point, but I should have noted that somewhere.

I also agree the issue is moot, but it's rather sporting to shoot holes into PGP theories and arguments.

And BTW, If I'm not mistaken, the bathroom towards the end of the video (link provided by Stacy) is NOT the bathroom facing the driveway, but rather down the other end of the hall (essentially underneath Laura's bedroom). The clue being a door jam between the sink and the bidet/toilet pair. There is no such jam in the other bathroom, clearly seen at the 18:48:37 mark (video timestamp, not YouTube playback timestamp). Not sure the relevance of this as it relates to a totally irrelevant discussion, but....

 

[TruthCalls]

In the better pics, it still looks like a wicker seat on that chair. I wouldn't stand on it.

If it's in good shape, wicker is pretty tough. However, if I wanted to look out that little window I would just stand on the bathtub. It would put you in a better position, it's easy to stand on and you can't fall through it.

 

[Stacyhs]

Without labouring the point (mainly because all this is moot anyhow, on account of the fact that there's no reliable evidence that anyone went into the lower cottage on the evening/night of the murder), I don't think your analysis is quite right.

Let's first take the visible portion of the chair shown in the video capture: it's right next to the sink and up against the wall against which the sink is also placed.

So we can find a good horizontal reference from the line across the back of the sink (not even Italian builders are so bad as to install a sink at an angle...).

And from that, we can see that in fact the outer vertical rod of the adjacent chair is almost precisely vertical. It's at right angles to the line across the back of the sink.

And this is totally at odds with the appearance of the other chair that is shown in full in the first photo, positioned next to the bath.

It's also, incidentally, at odds with the appearance of the chair shown in the video at 8:07, placed against the wall outside the bathroom (and placed face-on to the camera position this time). And this chair is of exactly the same appearance as the one in the first photo next to the bath.


But anyhoooo........

In the video, we see the chair outside the bathroom recorded at 18:47:46 (located at 8:06 in video). Fifty seconds later at 18:48:36 (8:22 in video) we see the chair in the bathroom next to the sink. During that 50 seconds, what would be the reason of moving the chair from outside the bathroom to inside next to the sink? I can think of none.

 

[Stacyhs]

There's a correction or qualification required in the first part of your otherwise excellent post:

The article you reference in the first citation addresses the request of Knox and her defense to move her trial on the charges that she committed calunnia against the police and Mignini out of Perugia's courts. Knox's argument that it had to be moved because of the conflict of interest in trying a case involving Perugia's police and prosecutor in Perugia was accepted as well-founded. The trial on these charges was indeed moved to Florence, and was heard by Judge Boninsegna, who acquitted Knox of the charges of calunnia against the police and Mignini. This trial had no direct connection with the case heard by the Nencini Court of Appeal in Florence.

On the other hand, after the Chieffi CSC panel annulled the Hellmann Court of Appeal verdict, it had to refer the case to another appeal court. Because there was no other chamber of the Court of Appeal in Perugia, the CSC referred the case to the Court of Appeal in Florence, the next nearest Court of Appeal to the one in Perugia, where it was heard by the Nencini Court of Appeal. The Italian law covering this situation of referral when there is no available new chamber of a Court of Appeal in the original jurisdiction is CPP Article 623, paragraph 1, subsection C).

Thanks for that clarification! You are, indeed, correct.

 

[TruthCalls]

TruthCalls, don't forget that there is also a wall that bars even more of the view. Look at this photo which show part of that wall which wraps around along the entrance in relation to the bathroom window. The line of sight would be quite high.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_716695d7ab9e43cdd0.jpg[/qimg]

Agreed, but you can't see around corners anyway. The entire discussion is silly. Vixen argued the chair was used to make it easier to remain looking out the window for an extended duration. Look at what?

 

[TruthCalls]

In the video, we see the chair outside the bathroom recorded at 18:47:46 (located at 8:06 in video). Fifty seconds later at 18:48:36 (8:22 in video) we see the chair in the bathroom next to the sink. During that 50 seconds, what would be the reason of moving the chair from outside the bathroom to inside next to the sink? I can think of none.

As I mentioned in my response to LJ, the bathroom at 8:22 (video) is not the same bathroom as there is a door jam between the sink and the bidet/toilet. Also, the small window facing the car park is above a bathtub, there is no bathtub below this one. See floorplan below;

 

[Stacyhs]

As I mentioned in my response to LJ, the bathroom at 8:22 (video) is not the same bathroom as there is a door jam between the sink and the bidet/toilet. Also, the small window facing the car park is above a bathtub, there is no bathtub below this one. See floorplan below;

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1320&pictureid=12253[/qimg]

TC, you are absolutely correct! Good catch. The video does not show that second bathroom at all so I assumed they were the same one.

I had not seen a picture of the window over the bathtub but finally found one. It's covered by a cloth, I assume for privacy (which would be easily pulled aside to look out). I agree with you that if anyone wanted to look out of that window, they would not have pulled up a chair to do so but would have just stood on the edge of the bathtub. It would actually be more difficult to see out standing on a chair as the window is in a little alcove and standing on the tub would give a more direct view out.

 

[Stacyhs]

LJ, after all this about the chair, it turns out it wasn't even in the same bathroom. Doh!

BUT...I did find this picture of the chair next to the sink in the second bathroom. Looks to me to be the same model of chair as that in the first bathroom after all.

 

[Vixen]

I'd ask you for a quote from Knox saying she was out "to sleep with as many guys as possible to gain sexual experience" but we both know you won't because you can't. Those are your words. Knox slept with a total of seven men. That is hardly as 'many guys as possible'. What she did say was that she wanted to explore her sexuality and that she tried having casual sex for a short time but then realized it wasn't for her.

I'd also ask you for proof that Knox was "sleeping with a convicted cocaine drug dealer" but, again, we both know you can't. Stop repeating things alleged without proof by the police and never presented in court. You're referring to the guy she met on the train to Florence with whom she had foreplay ONCE. They never saw each other again so it would be rather difficult to have been "sleeping" with him.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...iate-arrested-for-attempted-knife-murder.html

There is no evidence that F "sold drugs to" Amanda. Of course, we all know that Knox's hair tested negative for narcotics so she was not using cocaine. As far as there being "frequent" contact between them, Knox's phone records also disprove that claim. Which is why none of this was ever brought up in court at any of the trials. It was just more crap leaked to the press by the police.



Higher courts do NOT direct what verdicts the lower court is to find which is, essentially, what Chieffi did. And Nencini obeyed only to have that verdict excoriated by the Supreme Court.



Quite the opposite. It would be a better view over the wall that runs between the porch and parking area. The angle of view is more vertical the closer to the wall but lower when farther back. That is why we move back, not closer, to see over an obstacle.

Oh my Gosh!!! For someone who claims to be an Amanda Knox fan, you clearly haven't read her book where in her opening chapters she says exactly that (she went to Italy to have lots of sex with lots of men). Knox had an affair with Frederico/Christiano or whatever his name was. She did share a hotel room with him (dumping little sister Deanna). Do you think they played Whist all night...? She met up with him regularly. He was locked up for a very long time for his drug dealing antics.

Now you are claiming she was actually a prude.

I did not say Higher Courts 'direct what verdicts the lower court' should make. There, you are doing it again and you know you are, employing sophistry by twisting my words. I said: a higher court if it finds a lower court erred (from having heard an appeal on that point) will direct a lower court to reassess the issue on which they erred. <sfx knock knock knock>

That is what they do. They remit it back to the same court that erred. In this case unusually, it did not go back to Hellmann (please don't try to tell us Knox begged the court not to send it back to Hellmann but to move it to Florence HAHAHA!!!) but was unusually sent to a different region and different judge completely. Don't come out with your spin 'Knox and Sollecito requested Nencini of Florenc' as if the parties have any say in which court gets to hear a case. The judiciary tells them, not the other way round.

 

[Vixen]

If it's in good shape, wicker is pretty tough. However, if I wanted to look out that little window I would just stand on the bathtub. It would put you in a better position, it's easy to stand on and you can't fall through it.

Maybe you are a bit taller than the diminutive Ms Knox.

 

[Bill Williams]

Oh my Gosh!!! For someone who claims to be an Amanda Knox fan............

It would be interesting to take a poll to find out what percentage of lurkers/readers don't bother reading past this point.

There is not one fan on this forum. You have had evidence copied and pasted to you, in response to your increasingly silly claims.

For instance, you claimed that the Chieffi panel of the ISC in 2013 annuled the Conti-Vecchiotti report. What that ISC panel did, in annuling the 2011 acquittals, was say that Hellmann, the judge, had let the technical experts make the de facto judicial ruling as to whether or not Sample 36C should have been tested.

Otherwise, the Chieffi panel patently did not challenge Hellmann's right to appoint an independent forensic-DNA expert to comment of Stefanoni's work. In fact, the Chieffi court had said....

the decision (to appoint independent forensic-DNA experts) reveals the judges’ uncertainty about the results in evidence due to the probative information being held incomplete, and therefore evidences a need, for the purposes of the decision to acquire new information, which cannot be questioned by this court.​

That's how it's done, Vixen. You actually quote from rulings, rather than offer your own assessment or opinion, which turns out (in this case) to have been the opposite of what the 2013 Chieffi panel decided.

When you start your screeds as, "For someone who claims to be an Amanda Knox fan", you reveal yourself to have an agenda which is not supported by any evidence. Good for you.

 

[Vixen]

Agreed, but you can't see around corners anyway. The entire discussion is silly. Vixen argued the chair was used to make it easier to remain looking out the window for an extended duration. Look at what?

You've just committed a crime that involved a noisy contretemps it gives you (a) shelter and (b) a look out, until the coast is clear.

Alternatively, you are seething and raging that not only did your roommate 'steal' the handsome Italian skier you fancied but now she's 'stolen' your job. Your new boyfriend is a dedicated dope fiend (bragging about it openly on his social media pages) and knife fetishist. The pair of you are angry sociopaths with Daddy abandoning you as a kid to start a family with another woman. In Raff's case his mother died tragically and he was 'dumped' in a boarding school for orphans of doctors (BOY, IS HE BOILING WITH R A G E about that!)

The pair of you decide your roommate is a 'vampire' that needs slaying because she went out partying without you triggering your unhappiness at once again being Johnny-no-mates, the very reason you wanted to escape from Seattle and the dope fiend gets to enact his knife anime fantasies.

You have been into the old town bumped into Rudy and scored a load of powerful skank laced with who-knows-what and the three of you were completely off your heads as you lie in wait for the 'vampire'. Rudy, too, in a self made video on youtube fantasises himself as a vampire slayer and has he same user password on his PC as Raff, some dark anime character, only Rudy doesn't know the other two are for real and plan to frame him as the patsy.

After an altercation in the road behind the bins with an angry Albanian driver who almost ran one over you realise, hey, I know where Mez keeps the key to the downstairs flat, we can wait there until she turns up from yet more socialising and she didn't invite me.

So you make yourself at home in the boys flat whilst one of you drags a chair into the bathroom in order to step up onto the bath ledge to keep a watch out of the window for when she arrives.

Imagine the look on her face when the three of you confront her and have a little fun torturing an pricking her with your knife as she becomes ever more agitated.

Such a good laugh!

 

[Vixen]

Clearly you don't understand the concept of line of sight. Draw a line from the top of that window through the camera lens and extend it out past the road. Anything below that line is not visible.

You completely misinterpreted what I said - nothing new there. There is a large window in the bedroom to the right of the bathroom (when standing at the entrance to the bathroom). This is a downstairs bedroom, it faces the car park and it would be far easier to access than the bathroom window.

What I said was "Why would they be standing on a chair, leaning over the tub to look thru a small window when there was a full size window in the next room with basically the same view?" I have NO idea how you managed to interpret what I said as being a window in Laura and Filomena's bathroom.

Finally, you slip in the comment; "...the loo being at the far end and Knox claiming to blow dry her hair at the front door end (from whence Rudy could easily have made his escape were he a burglar caught out by Mez' arrival home and was in here hiding)". I'm not sure whether you're referring to the window itself - which had security bars on it - or the front door (which MEREDITH most likely locked as was habit) but neither offered an escape route for Guede.

The below elevation and floor plan pictures might help you 'visualize' the issue albeit true line of sight can't be established without accurate measurements.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1320&pictureid=12252[/qimg]

Seriously? In your depiction, the line of sight of the imaginary viewer has eyes or a lens the same height as the front door (seven to eight feet) and can only see the upper frame of the window and not the window itself.

 

[Vixen]

yep, much better....

https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article1785721.ece/ALTERNATES/s1227b/Amanda%20Knox%20and%20Raffaele%20Sollecito%20to%20face%20retrial%20.jpg

Yeah, better for seeing someone hanging over the railings taking the picture. Not for an approach via the car parking area (which one has to pass to get to the front door).

 

[Bill Williams]

You've just committed a crime that involved a noisy contretemps it gives you (a) shelter and (b) a look out, until the coast is clear.

Alternatively, you are seething and raging that not only did your roommate 'steal' the handsome Italian skier you fancied but now she's 'stolen' your job. Your new boyfriend is a dedicated dope fiend (bragging about it openly on his social media pages) and knife fetishist. The pair of you are angry sociopaths with Daddy abandoning you as a kid to start a family with another woman. In Raff's case his mother died tragically and he was 'dumped' in a boarding school for orphans of doctors (BOY, IS HE BOILING WITH R A G E about that!)

The pair of you decide your roommate is a 'vampire' that needs slaying because she went out partying without you triggering your unhappiness at once again being Johnny-no-mates, the very reason you wanted to escape from Seattle and the dope fiend gets to enact his knife anime fantasies.

You have been into the old town bumped into Rudy and scored a load of powerful skank laced with who-knows-what and the three of you were completely off your heads as you lie in wait for the 'vampire'. Rudy, too, in a self made video on youtube fantasises himself as a vampire slayer and has he same user password on his PC as Raff, some dark anime character, only Rudy doesn't know the other two are for real and plan to frame him as the patsy.

After an altercation in the road behind the bins with an angry Albanian driver who almost ran one over you realise, hey, I know where Mez keeps the key to the downstairs flat, we can wait there until she turns up from yet more socialising and she didn't invite me.

So you make yourself at home in the boys flat whilst one of you drags a chair into the bathroom in order to step up onto the bath ledge to keep a watch out of the window for when she arrives.

Imagine the look on her face when the three of you confront her and have a little fun torturing an pricking her with your knife as she becomes ever more agitated.

Such a good laugh!

It's the height of irony that you could write a fantasy like this, and call others sociopaths.

 

[Vixen]

TruthCalls, don't forget that there is also a wall that bars even more of the view. Look at this photo which show part of that wall which wraps around along the entrance in relation to the bathroom window. The line of sight would be quite high.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_716695d7ab9e43cdd0.jpg[/qimg]

No, it's not a wall, it's a railing.

 

[Vixen]

Thanks for that clarification! You are, indeed, correct.

Haha! Stacyhs informing Numbers he is 'correct'. LOL. The chutzpah.

 

[Vixen]

TC, you are absolutely correct! Good catch. The video does not show that second bathroom at all so I assumed they were the same one.

I had not seen a picture of the window over the bathtub but finally found one. It's covered by a cloth, I assume for privacy (which would be easily pulled aside to look out). I agree with you that if anyone wanted to look out of that window, they would not have pulled up a chair to do so but would have just stood on the edge of the bathtub. It would actually be more difficult to see out standing on a chair as the window is in a little alcove and standing on the tub would give a more direct view out.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_716695d7ae454ac8d6.jpg[/qimg]

That's the same photo as earlier? Except you can see the window in full. You would probably use the chair as an easy way to mount the bath or maybe to accommodate two persons looking out.

 

[Vixen]

LJ, after all this about the chair, it turns out it wasn't even in the same bathroom. Doh!

BUT...I did find this picture of the chair next to the sink in the second bathroom. Looks to me to be the same model of chair as that in the first bathroom after all.


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_716695d7ae1de86107.jpg[/qimg]


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_716695d7ae2210db78.jpg[/qimg]

Likely bought by the landlady as a set.

 

[Stacyhs]

Oh my Gosh!!! For someone who claims to be an Amanda Knox fan,

You begin with a false statement. Not surprising. I've never made such a claim. I believe in her innocence. If you consider that being "a fan", then I can't help you.

you clearly haven't read her book where in her opening chapters she says exactly that (she went to Italy to have lots of sex with lots of men).

I have read her book as I have a hard copy and an e-book copy which is why I can quote from it. You have said you've never read it, which explains the above silly statement. It also explains why you cannot quote Knox saying she went to Italy "to sleep with as many guys as possible to gain sexual experience". This is what she said:

I left for Italy having decide I needed to change that. For me, sex was emotional, and I didn't want it to be anymore-I hated feeling dependent on anyone else. I wanted sex to be about empowerment and pleasure, not about Does this person like me? Will he still like me tomorrow? I was young enough to think that insecurity disappeared with maturity. And I thought Italy would provide me the chance to see that happen.

WTBH

Exactly where does she say her goal is to "sleep with as many men as possible"? Those are YOUR words, not hers. As I said, she slept with THREE men in Italy, two of them only once. The third was Raffaele. Hardly a record for someone out to bang every man she could. Quote Knox saying what you claim or just shut up.

Knox had an affair with Frederico/Christiano or whatever his name was. She did share a hotel room with him (dumping little sister Deanna). Do you think they played Whist all night...?

LOL! Your ignorance is appalling. She hooked up with F/C and had foreplay, not intercourse, before going to her own hotel room ONE TIME in Florence. That is why she didn't include him in her list of sexual partners in her diary. As for 'dumping little sister', "By then it was so obvious that Christiano and I were into each other that I'm sure Deanna felt like an add-on. As soon as we finished eating, she announced that she wanted to go to bed and left us alone." (WTBH) Unless you have evidence that they had intercourse that night....put up or shut up.

I strongly suggest that if you want to tell us what Knox wrote in her book that you actually READ it first. You might not look so foolish,

She met up with him regularly. He was locked up for a very long time for his drug dealing antics.

There is no evidence whatsoever that she ever saw him again. He was in Rome and she was in Florence. Can you guess WHY this 'regular meeting up with a drug dealer' was never brought into court? Come on, Vix. Maybe if you try reeeeaaaaaal hard you might, just might, figure it out. But I kinda doubt it.

Whether he was a drug dealer or not, it has nothing to do with Knox or the murder. We know for a fact she did not take narcotics.

I see you have no words of criticism for Meredith sleeping with a guy who was growing weed in his apartment or for her watering his plants. Rather hypocritical, innit?

Now you are claiming she was actually a prude.

THAT is what you got out of this statement?

What she did say was that she wanted to explore her sexuality and that she tried having casual sex for a short time but then realized it wasn't for her.

And you accuse ME of twisting words! Holy moly!

I did not say Higher Courts 'direct what verdicts the lower court' should make. There, you are doing it again and you know you are, employing sophistry by twisting my words. I said: a higher court if it finds a lower court erred (from having heard an appeal on that point) will direct a lower court to reassess the issue on which they erred. <sfx knock knock knock>

I NEVER CLAIMED YOU SAID THAT. I do wish you'd be a bit more..no... a lot more, careful with your reading. THIS is what was said:

Originally Posted by Vixen
That's what higher courts do. They direct the lower court to correct its legal error by reassessing the issue in question.

Higher courts do NOT direct what verdicts the lower court is to find which is, essentially, what Chieffi did. And Nencini obeyed only to have that verdict excoriated by the Supreme Court.

Sheesh!

That is what they do. They remit it back to the same court that erred.

Oh, really? Is that what they do? Is that why it went back to Massei? I must have missed that trial. Did Chieffi send it back to Hellmann? I must have missed that too!

In this case unusually, it did not go back to Hellmann (please don't try to tell us Knox begged the court not to send it back to Hellmann but to move it to Florence HAHAHA!!!) but was unusually sent to a different region and different judge completely. Don't come out with your spin 'Knox and Sollecito requested Nencini of Florenc' as if the parties have any say in which court gets to hear a case. The judiciary tells them, not the other way round.

Sigh. Once again, I presented evidence with citation (more than one) that the case was sent to Florence because Perugia only had one appellate court and it could not be tried in front of the same court again. If you would care to present evidence why it was not tried again in Perugia that contradicts that evidence, then please do so.HAHAHA! We all know that ain't gonna happen!

By the way, I never said Knox and Sollecito requested anything. It was Knox's lawyer, Dalla Vedova. Nor did I say Nencini was requested;only the jurisdiction of Florence. Do try and read for comprehension. Maybe if you read more slowly or have a dictionary handy?

...Knox's defense team successfully fought to have the case moved to another jurisdiction.

According to the Italian news agency ANSA, Knox lawyer Carlo Dalla Vedova asked that the trial be moved from Perugia to Florence, arguing that there is a conflict of interest with the prosecutor, Giuliano Mignini. Dalla Vedova said Mignini, who was present in court today, argued the slander case even though he is one of the parties involved in making the allegation against Knox.

https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlin...d-to-florence/

Really, Vixen. Stop embarrassing yourself.