Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Kestrel]

I think you've read it wrong Dan o. You and google translations don't go together.

I also refer you to the following series of articles on TJMK 'Understanding Micheli'. I think you can use all the help in understanding him you can get.

Look at the photo link provided by Dan O. Right over the "R" is a divot in the inner shutter. This is the scratch with frayed wood with embedded glass described in the Micheli Report.

Nobody from TJMK has ever explained how breaking the window from the inside could have created the pattern of broken glass seen in the photos of this room. Or the damage to the inner shutter shown in the photo Dan O. linked.

It's should be clear to anyone that understands physics that the rock was thrown from the outside.

 

[Dan O.]

I think you've read it wrong Dan o. You and google translations don't go together.

I also refer you to the following series of articles on TJMK 'Understanding Micheli'. I think you can use all the help in understanding him you can get.

Here is the translation I have:

"The room is illuminated by a window, located in the middle third of the front wall facing the driveway of the house. The same is protected externally by a Persian Florentine wood green, actually found slightly open and free of tampering. The door to the right of the shutter is equipped with a locking device called 'a tit'. The window consists of two components in white wood with pA.lli glass, opening inwards, each fitted inside with dark wood white. The dark of the tax right, holds a small bolt closure, actually coupled to the respective slot in turn set the tax below, and a second closure device, called 'a tit' fitted with a bolt more G. the former, actually open for business (..). The tax has left the glass shattered in the bottom half and a hole of irregular shape, measuring cm. Length and 53 cm. 27 wide. The inner and outer sill of the window is covered with glass fragments of various sizes, also present in the room. The inner side of the dark of the tax left, at the hole in the glass, a clear scratch in the wood of irregular shape of cm. About 2, with fraying of the wood fibers and some small shards of glass embedded therein (..).

"Dark" is googles translation for "Shade" and does not refer to the shutter.

We see this in a subsequent reference to this window:

As for the window, remember to have certainly closed the windows but leaving the dark probably open: the shutters Although not a hundred percent sure, thought to have them shut, but without anchoring both, since the charge left met resistance on the sill due to a swelling of the wood.

For those that still don't see it, here is an excerpt from that photograph linked above with the fresh 2 cm "scratch" circled in red:

 

[Kestrel]

It doesn't have to, since they weren't close ups, not when you have testimony from two eye witnesses verifying it. Neither did either Amanda or Raffaele ever challenge the statement by the Postal Police when they testified that that they pointed out to Raffaele and Amanda the break-in was obviously faked by pointing out the glass on top of the clothing to them. Moreover, Mignini and Comodi presented photos in the main trial that showed glass on the clothing.

They did make that claim, but it didn't stand up in court.

Yesterday, as we remember, Mignini showed a picture with white stains on a sweater, which he suggested could be the glass of the broken window. That phantom glass that everybody saw except the cameras.

Maria del Grosso answered Mignini. Simply by picking the next picture. Which shows what the white things were: the polka dots of the sweater.
An optical illusion had deceived Mignini. Just the last of the many illusions of this case, optical or not.

 

[stilicho]

Originally Posted by Prometheus
Criminal behaviour is sociopathic by definition--unless you argue that crime somehow produces some kind of net good for society.

Now that's interesting.

I really had to think about this one again. I know it's a slight bit of a derail but how could it be that criminal behaviour is defined by its net benefit to society?

I can think of many examples where the net benefit of criminal behaviour is actually positive rather than negative. The one that springs instantly to mind is smuggling. This is an unlawful act (avoiding tariffs and customs) to bring lower cost and highly demanded goods to consumers.

So, you might say, murder is not a positive net benefit and can never be so. But a lot of people would say that any of the assassination attempts of Hitler, if successful, would have had a positive net benefit to society. Might have even saved millions of lives.

Then there are those ambiguous "crimes" such as abortion where any number of arguments about net benefit to society may be produced for either side of the debate. Calling abortion criminal-cum-sociopathic just because it's declared to be illegal sounds a little extreme. Same goes for jurisdictions that declare abortion to be legal. They didn't suddenly reverse any of the validity of the stance of those who oppose it. Just saying something's legal or illegal doesn't change its net benefit--does it?

So then we're left with murder--and brutal, callous murder such as Meredith's. Yet most murders do contain an element of brutality and callousness. I've yet to hear someone say: "Oh, that was a beautiful and noble murder." So, all murder, we could agree is both a negative benefit to society and always contains an element of brutality.

Does that mean they are all the work of sociopaths? I suppose that depends on how we define sociopathic behaviour. If it's limited to negative net benefit then you'd have to separate the criminal act from all the other things individuals such as RG, RS, and AK have done with the rest of their lives. Not knowing every detail, it's hard to say, but two of them attended university, and each of them demonstrably forged rather common social bonds with their peers and their families.

So did they only become sociopaths at the moment of Meredith's murder? That seems to cheapen the definition. Something else that bothers me about slinging around psychological terms like this, and defining them at our pleasure, is that each of the three seem to know very well that what they did was wrong. RS clammed up. RG suggested strongly that the other two knew what happened and aren't telling. AK forgets things selectively and only those things that implicate her.

Those all seem like pretty ordinary responses to having done something unconscionable.

I find that we observers tend to want ordinary crimes to appear to be the product of a damaged mind rather than a normal one. It's a powerful psychological defence mechanism to pronounce to all concerned that, because "I wouldn't do that and I'm normal" then only someone who was "mad" would do such a thing. Yet "normal" people do things that may have a negative net benefit to society (or just ignore rules) all the time. I walk to work and see people drive through red lights or try to beat a pedestrian to a crosswalk every single day. I doubt any thought is made to the consequence of the action. It certainly doesn't benefit society to ignore the red light and risk a collision but people do it because they're in a hurry. I could create a list as long as this thread of ordinary people accomplishing things for themselves in spite of society and not to its net benefit.

Finally, I find it noteworthy that none of the three accused deployed an "insanity defence". These are among Italy's finest lawyers, too. I'm a little sceptical of courtroom psychology as you might have gathered yet Ghirga and Dalla Vedova didn't even supply an expert to explain AK's self-diagnosed "Vision Quest". They let the PM essentially expose it to ridicule during AK's testimony.

If the defence teams didn't think they were crazy then why should we?

 

[stilicho]

They did make that claim, but it didn't stand up in court.

You're wrong about that. The faked burglary was proven and was among the crimes of which they were convicted. Remember that AK and RS both stated that nothing was taken. Let's take them at their word on this one.

 

[Kestrel]

You're wrong about that. The faked burglary was proven and was among the crimes of which they were convicted. Remember that AK and RS both stated that nothing was taken. Let's take them at their word on this one.

Your faith in the divinely inspired perfection of the Italian justice system is touching.

But since this is a skeptic forum, we shouldn't be using argument by authority. We should be discussing the evidence and the science behind the evidence.

 

[odeed]

Here is the translation I have:


"Dark" is googles translation for "Shade" and does not refer to the shutter.

We see this in a subsequent reference to this window:


For those that still don't see it, here is an excerpt from that photograph linked above with the fresh 2 cm "scratch" circled in red:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/151444b818069a2912.jpg[/qimg]

I honestly don't see how the picture proves that the window was closed. The mark could have been made with window open and the shutter behind it.

Also if the internal shutter was closed, would it not be less likely for a burglar to try and break in at that window?

 

[stilicho]

Your faith in the divinely inspired perfection of the Italian justice system is touching.

But since this is a skeptic forum, we shouldn't be using argument by authority. We should be discussing the evidence and the science behind the evidence.

Indeed, this is presumed to be a sceptics' forum. So why aren't you asking yourself why the evidence supplied by the prosecution won over the expensive lawyers for RS and AK?

Who was convinced by the glass-as-polkadots theory, exactly? Frank "Sforza" and you? AK and RS obviously knew the break-in was staged; they said as much in statements used against them in court. Filomena knew it was staged. The Postal Police knew it was staged. RG knew it was staged.

Everyone accepts that it was faked except for you and some others who ignore the science and the evidence. The worst thing about it is that it was obviously faked. This isn't about signal-versus-noise in arcane DNA forensics or muddled protestations about who carried what mop where to clean up which. Nobody in the cottage at the time of the discovery of Meredith's body thought it was a real burglary. None. Not one of them.

Why do you think it was when nobody who was there thinks so?

 

[Dan O.]

I honestly don't see how the picture proves that the window was closed. The mark could have been made with window open and the shutter behind it.

Could have been. But there is all the glass both inside and out on the window sill and several large pieces of glass well into the room visible on the mat beside the bed. This evidence is 100% compatible with the rock thrown from the outside. If it were staged, the perpetrators would have to be quite talented to think to plant the glass evidence so far from the window.

Also if the internal shutter was closed, would it not be less likely for a burglar to try and break in at that window?

Filomena thought that the shades were left open. This would best explain the broken glass getting so far into the room.

 

[stilicho]

If it were staged, the perpetrators would have to be quite talented to think to plant the glass evidence so far from the window.

Argument from incredulity.

Next.

 

[Kestrel]

Indeed, this is presumed to be a sceptics' forum. So why aren't you asking yourself why the evidence supplied by the prosecution won over the expensive lawyers for RS and AK?

Who was convinced by the glass-as-polkadots theory, exactly? Frank "Sforza" and you? AK and RS obviously knew the break-in was staged; they said as much in statements used against them in court. Filomena knew it was staged. The Postal Police knew it was staged. RG knew it was staged.

Everyone accepts that it was faked except for you and some others who ignore the science and the evidence. The worst thing about it is that it was obviously faked. This isn't about signal-versus-noise in arcane DNA forensics or muddled protestations about who carried what mop where to clean up which. Nobody in the cottage at the time of the discovery of Meredith's body thought it was a real burglary. None. Not one of them.

Why do you think it was when nobody who was there thinks so?

Argument by popularity is just as invalid as argument by authority.

The evidence doesn't support your claim that entry via the window was faked. In fact, it points to exactly the opposite.

Niether you, nor the TJMK crowd has ever explained how the window could have been broken from the inside and create the damage to the interior shutter and the scattered pattern of glass in Filomena's room. A pattern that is perfectly compatible with a rock tossed in from outside.

You persist in believing that the climb to the window required Spiderman skills. When even the Micheli Report report said:

it took a man physically agile, as certainly the G. like and indeed are the thieves who visit the homes of people overnight.

Speaking of thieves in the night, Rudy was connected to another Perugia burglary where a rock tossed in an upstairs window was used to gain entry. Milan police caught Rudy with a stolen laptop and cell phone from that burglary about a week before the murder. In court, the victims of that theft testified that Rudy showed up at their office and claimed to have only purchased the stolen property. If Rudy wasn't involved in the theft, how did he know the address?

 

[odeed]

Could have been. But there is all the glass both inside and out on the window sill and several large pieces of glass well into the room visible on the mat beside the bed. This evidence is 100% compatible with the rock thrown from the outside. If it were staged, the perpetrators would have to be quite talented to think to plant the glass evidence so far from the window.




Filomena thought that the shades were left open. This would best explain the broken glass getting so far into the room.

So if the shutter (or shades) were left open, which you say explains the glass so far into the room, how did the rock hit?

It looks from the picture to be a full on impact, if the shades were half open for example, which would allow glass to go into the room, the rock would leave a glancing blow scrape.

 

[lector]

I can't tell much either way from that one photograph. Perhaps there are others that make a more compelling case.

In any event, even if the window were broken from the outside, what is the objection to AK & RS having thrown the rocks from outside after tossing the room, as part of the staging?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I can't tell much either way from that one photograph. Perhaps there are others that make a more compelling case.

In any event, even if the window were broken from the outside, what is the objection to AK & RS having thrown the rocks from outside after tossing the room, as part of the staging?

A very good point, sir.

 

[stilicho]

Argument by popularity is just as invalid as argument by authority.

The evidence doesn't support your claim that entry via the window was faked. In fact, it points to exactly the opposite.

Niether you, nor the TJMK crowd has ever explained how the window could have been broken from the inside and create the damage to the interior shutter and the scattered pattern of glass in Filomena's room. A pattern that is perfectly compatible with a rock tossed in from outside.

You persist in believing that the climb to the window required Spiderman skills. When even the Micheli Report report said:

Speaking of thieves in the night, Rudy was connected to another Perugia burglary where a rock tossed in an upstairs window was used to gain entry. Milan police caught Rudy with a stolen laptop and cell phone from that burglary about a week before the murder. In court, the victims of that theft testified that Rudy showed up at their office and claimed to have only purchased the stolen property. If Rudy wasn't involved in the theft, how did he know the address?

Argument from popularity? Not quite. None of those inside the cottage when Meredith's door was broken down and her body was discovered thought there had been a burglary.

This is why RG was not charged with burglary. Instead, it was AK and RS who were charged and convicted of faking one.

You need to stop arguing that the faked burglary is a claim. It is the argument there was a real burglary that is a claim. It is that claim that was unsupported by the evidence. Just as an example you need to ask yourself: "What was stolen?"

AK, RS, Filomena, the Postal Police, the photographic evidence, and the physical evidence all say "nothing was stolen". If all you have is Frank "Sforza's" astonishment that anyone could actually fake a burglary then you have even less than what their highly paid lawyers had.

The faked burglary is established fact, Kestrel. Your contrary claim is ephemeral and nowhere supported by the evidence, the witnesses, or even the defendants themselves. Nobody believes you.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Look at the photo link provided by Dan O. Right over the "R" is a divot in the inner shutter. This is the scratch with frayed wood with embedded glass described in the Micheli Report.

Nobody from TJMK has ever explained how breaking the window from the inside could have created the pattern of broken glass seen in the photos of this room. Or the damage to the inner shutter shown in the photo Dan O. linked.

It's should be clear to anyone that understands physics that the rock was thrown from the outside.

The window was opened when broken. They open inward, not outward.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Here is the translation I have:

Which also happens to miss the part where Micheli somehow concludes the window was broken from the outside. Where is that?

 

[Fulcanelli]

They did make that claim, but it didn't stand up in court.

And to support that, you cite Frank Sfarzo, who's FOA. Do you have any neutral source for that?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Your faith in the divinely inspired perfection of the Italian justice system is touching.

But since this is a skeptic forum, we shouldn't be using argument by authority. We should be discussing the evidence and the science behind the evidence.

So do it. Instead of trying to simply slip flies into the ointment, that would be nice. Practice what you preach and all that...

 

[Dan O.]

So if the shutter (or shades) were left open, which you say explains the glass so far into the room, how did the rock hit?

It looks from the picture to be a full on impact, if the shades were half open for example, which would allow glass to go into the room, the rock would leave a glancing blow scrape.

The scratch on the outside shutters was presented as proof that the rock was thrown against the window from the inside.

It is also the fact the inside of the outside shutter is dented and scratched from the rock being thrown from the inside.(link)

They certainly know how to get their facts wrong over there.


If we had a higher resolution image of the damaged section we might be able to deduce more about the specific impact. The straight cut and leaving behind glass slivers is more consistent with an impact with the flat edge of glass than the round of the rock. Even with the shade open, a section of glass could be forced into the glass as the window opens either by the force of the rock (if the window wasn't latched) or when the intruder pushes it open.