Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Kermit]

Ducking and bobbing and weaving

I am not sure what you mean. Are you asking who wrote it, who signed it, or something else. I will not have time to respond further for about a day.

.
Ducking and bobbing and weaving.

When you come back, Halides1, you can enlighten us as to who engaged "Libby" Johnson to "work pro bono", as you have stated without offering any further detail, nor replying to repeated questions of the sort.

 

[Amazer]

1.Why is there no sign of impact from the rock on the inside surface of the exterior shutter?

Because the larger flat surface of the rock hit the exterior shutter? Larger impact area, less damage.
Or perhaps the rock wasn't thrown, instead they kept it in their hand and swung it at the window?

2. What kept glass from the broken window from sliding out the slots of the exterior shutter?

The glass just didn't achieve the speed necessary to reach the outside shutter? That would be possible if the rock was held in their hands and swung at the window.

3. How was the impact mark with embedded glass on the outside surface of the interior shutter created?

Stone in hand... swing at inside shutter.

4. How did the broken glass end up scattered across the floor of Filomena's room?

You can try this at home... drop some glass on a stone floor from 1 meter height and you will be surprised where it can/will end up. Even if you drop it straight down.

 

[shuttlt]

I am not sure what you mean. Are you asking who wrote it, who signed it, or something else. I will not have time to respond further for about a day.

Halides,

I am aware of the publicly stated information about the open letter. You have indicated you are aware of information that is not public. Much about the open letter seems mysterious. How did it come to be written? Did Dr Hampikian get out of bed one day and organize all this on a whim? If not, who asked him to do it? Is the letter an official Innocence Project effort, if not, why not? What information was he provided with and who by? Who paid for all of the information given to the authors of the open letter to be translated, this much surely have run into many tens of thousands of dollars if they actually had access to anything other than a tiny subset of the forensic data. If it was only a subset, who selected what went in to the subset? Is this the same information Dr Waterbury was provided with? Why have they been provided with the information, but others not - you for example? Who was the open letter "submitted" to on 19th November? Why did Dr Johnson remove the open letter citing copyright issues, surely this contradicts the whole idea of an open letter? How many people was the open letter sent to in order to get the 7 signatures? How were the people the open letter was sent to selected? Why was all of the effort, that one presumes was invested in the open letter, only expended after it could have no impact on the trial? Did the authors of the open letter make any effort to contact the people and organizations they were criticizing?

Those are the first few question that I have regarding the open letter. The problem in knowing what questions to ask is that the whole thing may well be chock full with unknown unknowns. You know the sort of stuff that would seem interesting and relevant to me. You know the information that I have access to. Do you know anything beyond the fact that the authors didn't charge for their time? Is the pro-bono thing all that your source has told you about the open letter. You appear to be uncomfortable talking about the nature of your source and what he/she has told you. Is there any way for you to talk about this so we can get more of a sense of where this information is coming from without you having to betray any confidences?

 

[Kestrel]

1.Why is there no sign of impact from the rock on the inside surface of the exterior shutter?

Because the larger flat surface of the rock hit the exterior shutter? Larger impact area, less damage.
Or perhaps the rock wasn't thrown, instead they kept it in their hand and swung it at the window?

2. What kept glass from the broken window from sliding out the slots of the exterior shutter?

The glass just didn't achieve the speed necessary to reach the outside shutter? That would be possible if the rock was held in their hands and swung at the window.

If the exterior shutters is closed, the distance between the window and the exterior shutter is a few centimeters. in order to not reach the exterior shutter, the glass has to fall almost straight down with no forward momentum imparted by the swinging rock.

When the rock is thrown from outside, the energy transferred to the glass by the rock forces it into the room. The problem of calculating the precise velocity of the rock to just break the window disappears.

Your theory of the window being broken from inside now requires the glass to fall straight down so as not to reach the shutters. Since the glass doesn't reach the shutters, there is no need for the shutters to be closed to hold in the glass. So tell me again why you are sure the shutters were closed?

3. How was the impact mark with embedded glass on the outside surface of the interior shutter created?

Stone in hand... swing at inside shutter.

More properly, you need to swing the rock through the glass into the inner shutter. If the window is closed, you would have to be outside the window to swing the rock. If the window is open, the glass ends up on the floor and not the window sill.

Bruce's web page has great photographs of the broken window. There is some glass on the inner and outer window sill, but no glass where the closed frame of the window would have covered the sill. Clear evidence that the window was closed when it was broken. And if the window was closed, you have to be outside to swing the rock and drive the glass into the inner shutter.

4. How did the broken glass end up scattered across the floor of Filomena's room?

You can try this at home... drop some glass on a stone floor from 1 meter height and you will be surprised where it can/will end up. Even if you drop it straight down.

Now comes a tricky part. Tell me where the person swinging the rock has to stand so they don't get in the way of the glass flying across the room.

 

[odeed]

Filomena thought she closed the shutters, but wasn't certain. If the shutters were closed, it was rather simple to open them. Reaching up with a stick would do the job if the burglar didn't want to climb.

If the rock was thrown from inside, there are some questions that require answers.

1.Why is there no sign of impact from the rock on the inside surface of the exterior shutter?

Maybe they opened the window from the inside so it was against the interior (white solid) shutter, and then broke it.

2. What kept glass from the broken window from sliding out the slots of the exterior shutter?

Irrelevant to my scenario.

3. How was the impact mark with embedded glass on the outside surface of the interior shutter created?

See my answer to 1.

4. How did the broken glass end up scattered across the floor of Filomena's room?

May be they used something to catch the broken shards and then scattered them around the room.

 

[Fulcanelli]

The exterior shutters are not solid, they have louvered. There are designed to let some fresh air in even when the shutters are closed.

yes 'air', not glass. The sluts are very thin and angled. That's why the glass (which is relatively large and has all sorts of funny angles) and couldn't get through. A slot machine will fit coins in. Try standing back and throwing coins in the slot and see how many get in.

Look at the photos on Bruce's web site. There is some glass on the inner sill of the window and some on the outer sill. The glass is mostly confined to one side. Claiming that there is glass "all over" the ledge is inaccurate.

The picture I posted earlier shows clearly it's all over the outside ledge. And it is certainly truer to say, the glass is all over the outer ledge then 'Rudy's DNA is all over the murder room'.

It's also rather clear that just like the judge, you don't understand basic physics.

Cue the sophistry from Kestrel.

I understand basic physics, evidently far better then you. I also understand gravity, equally better then you it would seem.

ETA: Filomena wasn't certain that she closed the shutters when the Micheli report was written.

I refer you to the Massei Report. He was in court, you were not.

 

[Fulcanelli]

When the rock is thrown from outside, the energy transferred to the glass by the rock forces it into the room. The problem of calculating the precise velocity of the rock to just break the window disappears.

But apparently, in the laws of physics in Kestrel's world, it doesn't also knock glass off the edge of the outer sill onto the ground below.

It was held in check by thie invisible forcefield Rudy made with his laser gun, wasn't it Kestrel?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Your theory of the window being broken from inside now requires the glass to fall straight down so as not to reach the shutters. Since the glass doesn't reach the shutters, there is no need for the shutters to be closed to hold in the glass. So tell me again why you are sure the shutters were closed?

Who said it didn't reach the shutters? It was the shutters that prevented the glass from going outside.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Now comes a tricky part. Tell me where the person swinging the rock has to stand so they don't get in the way of the glass flying across the room.

'What' glass 'flying' across the room?

They were standing right where Filomena was standing shaking glass off of the clothes. No wait, that 'was' Filomena.

 

[shuttlt]

Does it really matter about the sodding rock? There is nothing Rudy could have done lobbing the rock through the window that Amanda and Raffaele couldn't have equally well done with the rock.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Latest news, translated by Jools:

From CU:
Seven accused for showing a video recording of Mez in the nude.

Today in court the Family Sollecito plus 2 journalists for the start of their trial, but the hearing will probably be postpone because lawyer Luca Maori is busy involved in another big case in Milan.

The accused facing four charges are:
Francesco Sollecito and his wife Maria Papagni, aka Mara (Raffaele's father and stepmother), Vanessa Sollecito (sister of the convicted for the Perugia crime) and his paternal uncle and aunt, Giuseppe and Rosaria [Sara] Achille, as well as the director and another journalist from Telenorba, TV network in Bari. The following are their defending lawyers: Luca Maori, Marco Brusco, Francesco Crisi, Paolo Sisto, Francesco Mastro and Donatella Donati.

Representing Meredith's mother, father, sister and her two brothers are lawyers: Francesco Maresca and Sabrina Perna.

http://www.corrieredellumbria.it/news.asp?id=40

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=42742#p42742

 

[stilicho]

They don't like Frank as a source, Chris. Unless they agree with what he reported and can't find another one. I asked earlier what evidence exists of his dishonesty and I got the name game and maybe he is getting paid or at least having his expenses covered by some anonymous American source. It seems that Barbie is much more trusted despite the many errors and omissions, after all she is not dishonest, just wrong in many cases, and besides, she is perceived as being on the right team.

Despite the fact that Frank has reported a lot of information that appears to be backed up by other sources as accurate he is not part of the right group. Therefore he is a lying liar. Even the people that are willing to admit that they see it as possible that the defense didn't get all the information will qualify that by saying they got all they needed or all that the court required. The "all they needed" part is an opinion without having the information available to confirm that opinion and it seems the appeal is addressing the courts decisions regarding the DNA evidence (or lack of).

Not everyone agrees with everything Barbie writes. If she's wrong then she's wrong. It's rather easy to verify.

But she uses her real name, she speaks the language, and she is not on the payroll of an interested party.

Frank is not a reliable source.

 

[stilicho]

When the rock is thrown from outside, the energy transferred to the glass by the rock forces it into the room. The problem of calculating the precise velocity of the rock to just break the window disappears.

Your theory of the window being broken from inside now requires the glass to fall straight down so as not to reach the shutters. Since the glass doesn't reach the shutters, there is no need for the shutters to be closed to hold in the glass. So tell me again why you are sure the shutters were closed?

You're making an error in your hypothesis by assuming that all possibilities are equally likely. There are reasons supplied by the investigators and the court as to why they are not all equally likely.

Moreover, you have not shown any work but suddenly created further complexity by arguing a stick was used to reopen the closed shutters. I had thought you'd said the shutters were open. Are you now willing to accept Filomena's statements to the authorities that they were closed?

"Reaching up with a stick would do the job if the burglar didn't want to climb."

Which is it? Did Filomena tell the truth when she stated the shutters were closed?

 

[Dan O.]

Does it really matter about the sodding rock? There is nothing Rudy could have done lobbing the rock through the window that Amanda and Raffaele couldn't have equally well done with the rock.

The rock is being presented as evidence that the breaking was staged. If you accept that the evidence is consistent with the rock being thrown from the outside in an attempted burglary then the argument that the break-in was staged is lost. Guilters think they can circumvent their burden to prove that a break-in is inconsistent with the evidence by postulating elaborate schemes for faking it.

 

[shuttlt]

The rock is being presented as evidence that the breaking was staged. If you accept that the evidence is consistent with the rock being thrown from the outside in an attempted burglary then the argument that the break-in was staged is lost. Guilters think they can circumvent their burden to prove that a break-in is inconsistent with the evidence by postulating elaborate schemes for faking it.

OK. I just don't see this as a central issue. That's just my perspective I guess. You mention elaborate schemes for faking the burglary. Wouldn't any scheme to fake a burglary necessarily be elaborate? I don't recall whether you believe in the conspiracy against Amanda or not, but would you agree the same argument that a conspiracy involving bent prosecutors, planted DNA evidence, 30+ police officers + a translator signing a false statement coerced out of a suspect, and dishonest judges who allow a case to proceed even though there is literally no evidence in order to avoid embarrasment for the prosecutor.... is kind of elaborate as well and should be discounted for that reason?

Either it is the case that Amanda and Raffaele found themselves in Amanda's home with a body, or they didn't. If they did they clearly tried to hide the fact by, amongst other things, providing false statements to the police. If they tried to hide the fact that they had ended up at Amanda's with a body on the 5th and decided to try and cover up their involvement, is it such a leap to think they might have tried to fake a burglary? If Guede was caught and they were careful then it would be his word against theirs.... what evidence would their be to support his claims that they were there? He broke in afterall. If Guede was not identified then an unknown person broke in and did it and they were home free.

 

[pipelineaudio]

What is FOA? Maybe its time for a FAQ on this stuff

 

[Fulcanelli]

Reaching up with a stick would do the job if the burglar didn't want to climb.

And what's suddenly with all the fantasy? What stick? Where is it? Again, someone seems to not have carefully read the posted section from the Massei Report...he states that to open the shutters from outside some sort of tool would have been needed (this would include a stick, although I can't see how one would open a set of tightly wedged shutters with a stick) and he notes there was not such tool of any kind found at the scene. So, whence this magical, invisible 'stick'?

 

[Fulcanelli]

The rock is being presented as evidence that the breaking was staged. If you accept that the evidence is consistent with the rock being thrown from the outside in an attempted burglary then the argument that the break-in was staged is lost. Guilters think they can circumvent their burden to prove that a break-in is inconsistent with the evidence by postulating elaborate schemes for faking it.

Only if you accept that an orbiting Starship Enterprise beamed the rock through the shutters.

 

[shuttlt]

Friends Of Amanda
http://friendsofamanda.org/home_eng.html

Pro-Amanda advocacy group. Charlie Wilkes who posts here from time to time runs it, whether there are other people who run it with him I don't know. It is implied by the site that others are involved.

 

[shuttlt]

Only if you accept that an orbiting Starship Enterprise beamed the rock through the shutters.

Come on Fulcanelli, I can't see that the shutters would be that hard to open. As for the stick.... isn't the killer supposed to be carrying at least one knife?