Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[stilicho]

"Whilst he was having a drink of fruit juice from the fridge, he claims Meredith found that 300 euros (her rent money) was missing from her bedside cabinet. Meredith was naturally upset by this discovery and straight away blamed “druggy Amanda”. Rudy said they both checked Amanda’s room to see if the money was there. However, it couldn’t be found and Rudy sought to console her."
http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index...rejected_rudy_guedes_explanations_as_fiction/

Of course this site could be in league with FOA...

Just wonderful, halides1. The fridge, incidentally, is in the common area and not in the bathroom.

Have you ever considered the possibility that, like AK and RS, Rudy was simply lying? Why do you suddenly attach so much credibility to Rudy's words?

It's astonishing to see the amount of effort you, Dan O, and Bruce Fisher put into discrediting AK's and RS's own words (they were tired, they were stoned out of their gourds, they didn't really mean it, they were slapped and tortured by police, they were thinking randomly, they were writing privately) but amazingly credit Rudy's statements as the gospel truth.

 

[stilicho]

Should the thread last long enough (and there is every indication that it will) he will ultimately succeed in proving that no evidence of any sort is sufficient to convict anyone of anything.

I said exactly that same thing about, oh, 100 pages ago. I figure that Kestrel, Dan O, Bruce Fisher, and halides1 have turned evidence-based criminal justice on its ear. I would suggest they advocate trial by combat because that's basically all that remains.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

momentum

Well, based on my 12 years experience working with natural stone (previous career) I can tell you with a fair degree of certainty that the stone wasn't thrown from outside either.

The way this stone behaved IF it was thrown from outside is nothing short of a miracle. It hits the window and the inside shutter and looses all it's forward momentum and starts to move in a direction that is at an almost 90 degree angle of it's previous flight path. To make things even better, once it hits the black paper bag, it does this same feat again.

The problem of course is that no known stone has the properties/qualities that would allow it to do such a thing.

Are you accounting for conservation of momentum?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

It starts with a rather clear violation of Newton's Second Law.

It's been a long time since I was in a Physics classroom. Mind elaborating?

How, exactly, was Newton's 2nd law violated by the Massei Report?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Are you accounting for conservation of momentum?

Honestly, do you just randomly spout sciency catch phrases hoping something will stick/turn some piece of evidence on it's ear?


Even if the rock were thrown from outside, do you have any evidence that places Rudy in Filomena's room? How about just some evidence that it's possible to unlatch the window through the hole in the pane without a) cutting oneself or b) knocking glass off the windowsill and into the garden?

 

[quadraginta]

I said exactly that same thing about, oh, 100 pages ago. I figure that Kestrel, Dan O, Bruce Fisher, and halides1 have turned evidence-based criminal justice on its ear. I would suggest they advocate trial by combat because that's basically all that remains.

So did I, but why should they be the only ones to repeat themselves?

 

[stilicho]

Are you accounting for conservation of momentum?

You win the thread, halides1. I was just waiting for it:

The problem with this hypothesis is that it failed to answer why support mechanisms that were completely undamaged offered next to no resistance as the collapse unfolded, and it violated the Law of Conservation of Momentum.

Quick, let's get pomeroo and Ryan Mackey over here because we've got ourselves a genuine conspiracy theorist among us.

Source for the previous quote? It's Alex Jones' Infowars: http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/bbc_debunked_pancake_theory_caused_towers_to_collapse.htm

It's so heartening to see a self-confessed non-expert like halides1 invoke theories he has little basic knowledge about, in defence of a half-baked hypothesis that deserves only to be heard in the CT forum.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

DNA forensics is fine

I said exactly that same thing about, oh, 100 pages ago. I figure that Kestrel, Dan O, Bruce Fisher, and halides1 have turned evidence-based criminal justice on its ear. I would suggest they advocate trial by combat because that's basically all that remains.

That comment made little sense then, and it makes less sense now. DNA profiling is one of the few (perhaps the only) branch of forensics which was developed entirely by scientists. Some years ago, arson investigation was just a bunch of old wives' tales (see David Grann's article on Todd Willingham). That is what makes the present case so disheartening.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

why am I not surprised

Honestly, do you just randomly spout sciency catch phrases hoping something will stick/turn some piece of evidence on it's ear?


Even if the rock were thrown from outside, do you have any evidence that places Rudy in Filomena's room? How about just some evidence that it's possible to unlatch the window through the hole in the pane without a) cutting oneself or b) knocking glass off the windowsill and into the garden?

This from the guy who has trouble with physics concepts like "before" and "after?"

 

[quadraginta]

Which laws of physics were broken for the Massei report?

It starts with a rather clear violation of Newton's Second Law.

Are you accounting for conservation of momentum?

Which of course would be Newton's First Law (sort of.)

It's been a long time since I was in a Physics classroom. Mind elaborating?

How, exactly, was Newton's 2nd law violated by the Massei Report?

Honestly, do you just randomly spout sciency catch phrases hoping something will stick/turn some piece of evidence on it's ear?

They need to whip out the Third Law next, and then perhaps Fudd's First Law of Opposition. That'll show us.

They can finish up with, "If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding.", and that'll put a stop to all dispute and we can go home for tea.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

This from the guy who has trouble with physics concepts like "before" and "after?"

NVM.


I'm still waiting for the evidence that Rudy was the one who broke the glass, or that he was every in Filomena's room.

If, as you claim, DNA evidence of a person passing through a hallway nearby could be found in a room, then surely Rudy's passage into, rummaging around in, and then exiting of Filomena's room must have left some kind of evidence.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

serious questions

How large was the rock? Does anyone have its exact mass? Does anyone have the thickness of the glass? What about the size/mass of the shutters?

 

[Amazer]

Are you accounting for conservation of momentum?

Yes.

 

[stilicho]

How large was the rock? Does anyone have its exact mass? Does anyone have the thickness of the glass? What about the size/mass of the shutters?

This is not how claims work. You do the work. You provide the science behind your claim. We will gladly refer your work to the appropriate JREF members for analysis and correction (if necessary).

The standard work on the broken window was done by experts in the field and presented in court for examination by the defence. If you have new evidence then you need to present it and do the maths yourself.

 

[lector]

That comment made little sense then, and it makes less sense now. DNA profiling is one of the few (perhaps the only) branch of forensics which was developed entirely by scientists. Some years ago, arson investigation was just a bunch of old wives' tales (see David Grann's article on Todd Willingham). That is what makes the present case so disheartening.

How does it make the whole case disheartening?

I can accept your discomfort with the double-DNA kinfe evidence. However, there is much more to the case than that.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

How large was the rock? Does anyone have its exact mass? Does anyone have the thickness of the glass? What about the size/mass of the shutters?

So, you don't know the mass of the rock, the thickness/density of the glass, the mass of the shutters, nor the friction coefficient between the shutters and window sill - and yet you're convinced the Massei Report violated Newton's 2nd Law. Wouldn't you need to know all of these things before doing the math that would allow you to assert such a claim?

Disingenious again

 

[stilicho]

So, you don't know the mass of the rock, the thickness/density of the glass, the mass of the shutters, nor the friction coefficient between the shutters and window sill - and yet you're convinced the Massei Report violated Newton's 2nd Law. Wouldn't you need to know all of these things before doing the math that would allow you to assert such a claim?

Disingenious again

Or just more random thoughts. That seems to be the mot du jour for the FOA crowd.

 

[Kestrel]

The tough calculations are for breaking the window by throwing the rock from the inside.

1. If the rock is thrown too fast, it will hit the exterior shutter and leaves a mark. You have to get the velocity exactly right to get the rock to break the window and not travel into the shutter.

2. Since the exterior shutter doesn't latch, hitting it will also push it open and let the glass and rock fall to the ground outside the cottage. The exterior shutters must be closed and stay closed to keep in the glass. (Even this might not work as the exterior shutters are not solid, they are slotted.)

3. The glass from the broken window will end up close to the window, not be strewn across the room. Leaving the problem of how to move dozens of small pieces of broken glass so it looks like the rock was thrown from outside.

4. The damage to the interior shutter, crushed wood with embedded glass, must somehow be created.

Throwing the rock from outside solves all of these problems. And since the goal is to break the window, you don't really care where the rock lands.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

to do the calculations, one needs the data

This is not how claims work. You do the work. You provide the science behind your claim. We will gladly refer your work to the appropriate JREF members for analysis and correction (if necessary).

The standard work on the broken window was done by experts in the field and presented in court for examination by the defence. If you have new evidence then you need to present it and do the maths yourself.

I did not make a claim; I asked a question. I would like to look into this further, but I need more information. However, the experts did not agree, from what I recall of this incident in Darkness Descending.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Mistaken again

So, you don't know the mass of the rock, the thickness/density of the glass, the mass of the shutters, nor the friction coefficient between the shutters and window sill - and yet you're convinced the Massei Report violated Newton's 2nd Law. Wouldn't you need to know all of these things before doing the math that would allow you to assert such a claim?

Disingenious again

It was Kestrel who brought up Newton's second law. The reason I asked my question is because conservation of momentum might explain the alleged 90 degree turn of the rock.