Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Chris_Halkides]

just dropping in

No, see, logic does come into play for me. The only way we'll ever know why she carried it would be for Amanda to tell - but she won't.

Logically, we know that Meredith was never at Raffaele's apartment. Logically, we know that Stefanoni's procedure resulted in an electropherogram that matches Meredith's DNA extremely well - and we know that logically, it's highly unlikely for that DNA to have come from someone else. Logically, we know that there is no reason to not believe Stefanoni.

Logically we know that Amanda and Raffaele cannot explain where either of them were that night.

Believing that Amanda is an innocent angel is highly illogical (a la Spock).

What about the alleles that just dropped into the electropherogram? I am still waiting for you to explain that one, with appropriates cites.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

asked and answered, many times

Evidence?

Check my previous messages. If you find something that is not in accord with the primary literature, I would be glad to hear about it.

 

[Amazer]

Have you looked at the photo of the rock in the bag? This wasn't a small rock. It's obvious that the act of it falling into the bag by gravity alone would cause it to topple over. The speed doesn't matter. You could stand over the bag, drop it in, and it would fall over. The bag was holding some clothes. If it had been holding something of substantial weight, I could see your point.

Sure, but what you describe here is not what Bruce describes what he thinks that happened.

And while we're at it, the scenario Bruce describes is even more unlikely if there are clothes in bag. Those clothes act as a natural shock absorber, robbing the rock of even more force. Force that is needed to push the bag forward over the purse.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

What about the alleles that just dropped into the electropherogram? I am still waiting for you to explain that one, with appropriates cites.

Wait, I thought it was Meredith's DNA?

Isn't that what you've claimed - that it is Meredith's DNA, but it got there through contamination?

Or are you just scrambling to find any reason to exclude the knife...

 

[Malkmus]

And the reason there's no glass in the garden below?

If the rock was thrown from the outside, it would have knocked the glass backwards into the room, with perhaps some small fragments falling into the yard. But I think there would be small glass fragments in the yard if broken from the inside as well. However, I doubt that RS and AK would have gone sifting through the grass looking for tiny glass fragments. If LE neglected to take photos of the glass on the clothes, then I doubt their thoroughness in checking for glass fragments outside the window.

Could the rock not have been thrown from inside, break the window, hit the shutter and bounce back into the room, landing in/on the bag?

You quoted my answer to that in your response to me.

Does it truly matter if Filomena was/is a slob or not? Filomena leaving her clothes on the floor does not preclude the break-in being staged.

Only if you're going to argue that her messy room is evidence of a staged break-in, as many are saying.

ANNNNND, Finally, Could Amanda or Raffaele have thrown the rock from outside after Meredith was murdered?

If you agree the rock could have been thrown from the outside then that negates your previous points that it had to have been thrown from the inside.

And,certainly, you can say that AK and RS threw the rock from the outside, but with what evidence? Your belief that they are guilty is not proof that they did.

 

[Malkmus]

The usual explanation is that Rudy wanted to see if anybody was in so he could burgle the place, so he lobbed a rock through the window to see.

Since he knew the girls (or at least one of them - Amanda), wouldn't it have been more prudent to, I don't know..., knock on the front door/ring the doorbell?

"Hi! Mind if I come in and burgle the place?"

 

[pipelineaudio]

Time to apply for the MDC...apparently you read much more and different into the poster's mind than what he typed

That could be too

 

[BobTheDonkey]

"Hi! Mind if I come in and burgle the place?"

Apparently you missed the rest of that conversation here:

"Hi, I'm a friend of Amanda's, is she home?"


"No? Ok, thanks"
or
"Hey Amanda, want to party/get high/etc"
or
no response




Regardless of whether the glass would have fallen into the garden when the glass was broken, glass most certainly would have fallen when Rudy climbed through the window/onto the sill.

Footprints in the dirt? Dirt in the room? No? Didn't think so

 

[Malkmus]

Bruce,

Do you have access to any of Filomena's statements to the police or her trial testimony to establish whether her room had been messed with? The only way to establish this with certainty is with a quote from her.

The lack of a quote on this is just as much confirmation. She may never have said anything about it.

Also, Shuttit, do you see my point about the messy room? Do you see that the mess is simply a pile of clothes on the floor? And do you see that there is no laundry hamper in her room? Since the girls lived in a residence with a washing machine, the need for a laundry hamper may not have been as necessary as someone who has to walk to an outside washing machine elsewhere. It appears that Filomena kept her dirty laundry in a pile in front of the wardrobe.

 

[stilicho]

This is not a fantasy. This is the basic truth. Try not to complicate things too much. Take a step back and look one more time. You just might see something that you have refused to see for all this time. You may start to see the truth.

It is a fantasy. It's really a lie. That is, it's an attempt to deceive using demonstrably untrue statements.

The defence 'proof' consisted of a volunteer climbing partway up the side of the cottage. There was no glass on the sill. He did not make his way through the window. He did not unlatch the window through a broken pane.

The photo you use shows nothing close to the claim that is made about Filomena's window as an entry point.

The deception is apparent to anyone who has seen views of the cottage from different angles.

You've claimed to arrive here for an honest discussion. We have all seen your claim about scaling the wall and entering without leaving any evidence, have read the judge's assessment of the claim, have looked at the evidence of another break-in through a logical entry point, have seen the cottage from several angles, and concluded that your claim is therefore false. With all the evidence arrayed against your claim, the reasonable thing to do would be to abandon it.

 

[stilicho]

Logic never comes in to play with you? You know she did it and it doesn't matter how or why?

I will be back on later to answer your list above. I have to sign off for now.

Wrong.

That's the approach you've taken with the Rudy-did-it-alone hypothesis. That approach handwaves away all evidence pointing to Raffaele and Amanda. Moreover, it suggests that every single element of ILE involved in the investigation and prosecution of the case was in lock step.

Is there a single element of the mountain of evidence against Raffaele and Amanda that you do not dispute? Fiona supplied a list about a hundred or more pages ago. We can see if we can dig it up for you.

It's sort of a litmus test for honest discussion, something you've claimed interest in.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

"mountain of evidence"

Are you honestly serious when you type that? Please be honest with me. I promise to be honest with you in return.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

It is a fantasy. It's really a lie. That is, it's an attempt to deceive using demonstrably untrue statements.

The defence 'proof' consisted of a volunteer climbing partway up the side of the cottage. There was no glass on the sill. He did not make his way through the window. He did not unlatch the window through a broken pane.

The photo you use shows nothing close to the claim that is made about Filomena's window as an entry point.

The deception is apparent to anyone who has seen views of the cottage from different angles.

You've claimed to arrive here for an honest discussion. We have all seen your claim about scaling the wall and entering without leaving any evidence, have read the judge's assessment of the claim, have looked at the evidence of another break-in through a logical entry point, have seen the cottage from several angles, and concluded that your claim is therefore false. With all the evidence arrayed against your claim, the reasonable thing to do would be to abandon it.

The logical entry point can be asked in regard to the alleged staged break in as well. Why would someone that lived in the house chose that window to stage a break in? It's not the best entrance point. You question works both ways. It's a wash.

When you look at the break in, please tell me what evidence you have that can possibly prove that Amanda or Raffaele had anything to do with that broken window?

We are talking about proving guilt. It doesn't really matter if you think that Rudy can or cannot climb through that window.

The only thing that matters is whether or not you can prove that Amanda or Raffaele had anything to do with that broken window.

You are so set in your beliefs that you think you can just brush everything else aside. You can't do that this time. My photos are not deceptive. They are very clear.

the room wasn't staged in any way. The prosecution's claims are wrong. You simply ignore all of the evidence in the room that proves my point.

Micheli thought the wall climb was possible. Rudy scaled a wall that was 2 feet higher to enter a law office. He is a very athletic man. Do you pick and chose the judges that you want to listen to?

He left evidence of his climb on the floor in the room. I am surprised that you look at that wall and expect to see marks on it from a climb. It is a porus surface with many areas of discoloration.

There is a cement walkway below. The ground wasn't nearly as muddy as you claim. Rudy could have easily avoided getting his shoes dirty on the ground.

I am here for an honest discussion. I am stating basic facts that are very easy to see.

 

[Fiona]

There are several reasons. One of which is that I have reconsidered the Jaidyn Leskie case, and I have decided that it more closely parallels the present one than I previously realized. Ms. P’s DNA profile was found on two pieces of Jaidyn’s clothing, a bib and some track pants. This result that is attributed to contamination on the basis that Ms. P lived hundreds of miles away from the crime and never left her village.

However, she could have lived next door to the Leskie family, and contamination would still be a likely explanation for finding her DNA on the toddler’s clothing. Jaidyn’s body was found submerged in water for at least one month. These conditions are very bad for preservation of DNA evidence. Significantly, none of Jaidyn’s DNA was recovered from his clothing. This should have been a reason to suspect contamination earlier. The no-blood knife is similar to Jaidyn’s clothing in that no DNA was there at the time of collection either; it was most likely deposited in the lab. The more closely the two cases are seen to resemble each other, the easier it is to see why the electronic data files would be helpful. For example, one could use the fsa files to examine other samples along the knife blade and handle using the same threshold value for all samples. I may not convince you, but I may convince others.

None of that has anything to do with what I asked you. You cannot convince anyone that information has been witheld by wittering on about other cases: and that is what you were talking about when I asked the question.

 

[shuttlt]

The lack of a quote on this is just as much confirmation. She may never have said anything about it.

Surely confirmation that something may have happened is no kind of confirmation at all. Also, why would we necessarily have a quote for such a minor issue? Don't you think at some point the police would have said "Hey, Filomena, aside from the rock and the glass did you notice anything funny about your room?".

Also, Shuttit, do you see my point about the messy room? Do you see that the mess is simply a pile of clothes on the floor? And do you see that there is no laundry hamper in her room? Since the girls lived in a residence with a washing machine, the need for a laundry hamper may not have been as necessary as someone who has to walk to an outside washing machine elsewhere. It appears that Filomena kept her dirty laundry in a pile in front of the wardrobe.

Perhaps she did. Perhaps it was as messy it appears, perhaps it was a bit messy but neater than we see in the photograph. Perhaps her laundry was in a bag on the back of the door. Hard to tell when we only have access to the 'after' photo. If you have a 'before' photo, then we can be sure just from photos. Without a 'before' photo, the only source we have on the 'before' situation is Filomena.

 

[shuttlt]

I have Amanda's statements. She said she didn't kill Meredith. Are we done with this?

So no statements from anybody have any value because they might be lying, forgetful, or mistaking things they've dreamed or been told for memories?

Do you see that the actual evidence out weighs anything Filomena says about her room?

Are you so incurious that you don't want to check? If this is an important issue, why stop seeking evidence the moment you feel you've got evidence that confirms your theory? Try to falsify it. Perhaps you're wrong? Perhaps there are statements from Filomena that backs up what you're saying? If Filomena says "actually, no! My room was a lot neater than that, there was a neat pile of clothes at the foot of the bed that has been tipped over, some clothes have been thrown out of the wardrobe, I didn't leave my computer on the floor....." how does the photo prove her wrong?

I clearly showed you that the prosecution's statements about the room were clearly false.

Clearly a lot of people here disagree that you have clearly shown this. I will have a read of your evidence, the break in has never interested me particularly, or seemed very important so I am not up on it.

The clothes were not thrown on the floor.

Only the person who caused the clothes to end up on the floor knows this.

This is very simple. That fact alone refutes the prosecution's theory.

I'm going to have to reread the prosecutions theory. I don't actually recall them mentioning the clothes. 'Faked burglary' is how it is normally described and I don't think I have ever examined any of the original Italian on this. You still seem to be claiming that it was a real burglery. I don't see how minor features of this 'real' burglery prove that it was real and not faked. Pretty much anything Rudy is supposed to have done, Amanda and Raffaele can have done too. If the rock was thrown from outside, the other two could have thrown it from outside, if the clothes weren't thrown around perhaps Amanda and Raffaele didn't throw any clothes around.

 

[shuttlt]

By the way Bruce, I wonder if you could give some indication of the relative importance you place on the break in. To me it seems like a minor issue, of importance mainly in terms of explaining why the police were suspicious. Surely the alibis and the DNA are far more significant?

 

[odeed]

Yes, it could have. But, imo, it would seem unnatural to leave it in the bag and not place it somewhere visible on the floor.



There's a big difference between throwing a rock at a second floor window, several feet away from you and throwing a rock at a window directly in front of you. You have plenty of time to throw it from outside and get out of the way of any glass that might fall on you. I think you need to look at the photos of the room and see that to throw the rock from inside you would have to be uncomfortably close to the exploding glass. You say yourself that small shards spray backwards, and the distance is indeed short, if thrown from inside the room.



The force of the rock pushed the panel open and sent part of the glass flying inward as it opened and other parts to fall on the sill. The parts on the sill probably fell off momentarily after the shattering occurred. Had it not caused the panel to swing completely open, then I could see how the glass would have just fallen on the sill and directly below the window.




As I pointed out, the "mess" is nothing more than Filomena's clothes on the floor. Since there was no laundry hamper in her room, it's safe to say she kept her dirty laundry in a pile on the floor.

The only video I can find illustrate my point is the first 20 sec of this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvIv5Up-WWc which is a brick hitting a glass pane. The action starts about 10 secs in and continues for about 8 secs, at 1000-1500 which by my rough calcs put it in the 0.1 to 0.25 secs range in real time.

Notice that the smaller fragments of glass start to fly off faster than the larger fragments so would of traveled further, and also the fastest speed is at the point of contact with the glass.

Also this takes place in a quarter of a second, would a rock thrown some distance and below the window (so it would of been slowing down even as it hit the window) have enough velocity to push open a wooden shutter hit near the hinges, so glass could "explode" into the room and on to the blue mat near the bed and table?

 

[RoseMontague]

Filomena testified as to the mess and it seems pretty clear to me that the mess was not of her doing (including the clothes).

She said that, knowing by then that the window of her bedroom had been smashed, her first instinct on returning to the flat had been to go to her room. What she saw was "a disaster". Her clothes were on the floor and her cupboard was open. But none of her jewellery was missing, nor her designer sunglasses and handbags. Her laptop was among the clothes. She said there was glass on top of the pile of clothes: "I remember that in lifting the computer I realised that I was picking up bits of glass because there were bits of glass on top and it was all covered with glass.

It is not letting me post the link (not enough posts yet) here is a partial guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/08/kercher-trial-knox

 

[shuttlt]

Well done RoseMontague,

Here's the link to the article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/08/kercher-trial-knox

At a first glance I see that the warm washing machine gets mentioned, so we may want to be a little careful that it is based on a good translation of what Filomena said.

Having said that, it seems to me this rather throws the ball back into Bruce's court. Bruce, are you able to access any of Filomena's statements, or testimony via the same source that gave you Amanda's statement?