Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fulcanelli]

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

FOA = Friends of Amanda Knox

It's a group of Knox sympathisers, some paid and some not (although some of those have 'other' incentives) set up to basically wage a PR campaign on her behalf, yo lobby journalists and politicians, fight dissenters (those they call the 'guilters') and to help raise funds for said PR campaign and to support Amanda's family with their legal and travel costs.

 

[stilicho]

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.

Provide evidence the investigators did not assess the possibility of a break-in through Filomena's window. From what you claim to know about the sentencing report, this should be a snap. Unless, of course, the report contains details of the evidence you pretend they didn't consider.

Speaking of elaborate schemes, Kestrel now has the shutters both open and closed and accuses Filomena of both lying or forgetting and also credits her with telling the truth. This is akin to arguing the Apollo missions both landed on the moon and that they were faked.

 

[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.

Talking of your tiresome throwing of the word 'guilters' around Dan_O....you passionately believe Rudy Guede is guilty right? How does that not make 'you' a guilter then?

 

[Dan O.]

Talking of your tiresome throwing of the word 'guilters' around Dan_O....you passionately believe Rudy Guede is guilty right? How does that not make 'you' a guilter then?

I passionaly believe the case against Amanda and Raffaele is not proven by the evidence we have. I've started a separate thread to examine the question of whether Rudy could be responsible as a lone wolf. That was obviously a direction that the guilters did not want to be examined.

 

[Dan O.]

Provide evidence the investigators did not assess the possibility of a break-in through Filomena's window. From what you claim to know about the sentencing report, this should be a snap. Unless, of course, the report contains details of the evidence you pretend they didn't consider.

If the investigators were truly evaluating the possibility of a break-in, they would have detailed photos of the window sill that would show if there were micro-scratches caused by someone climbing over the glass. They would have a detailed report including pictures of the clothes in the room and the layers where glass was found. They would recorded the marks on the floor where the rock landed indicating the direction and speed of impact. they would have detailed photos of the outside wall and window sill to show the presence or absence of marks indicating a climb up the wall. They would have photos of the ground below the window showing the pattern or absence of glass and any possible footprints. They would have located the origin of the rock and examined that area for evidence that might identify the perpetrator.

Did the investigators do any of this or did they just claim that they did what they should have done. Where is the contemporary evidence of what the investigators actually investigated? Where are the photographs?

 

[stilicho]

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?

I don't see the feat being that difficult, either, nor even preposterous. However, the robber/killer managed to do all this, undetected, and subsequently remembered to remove the stick or pole from the ground, along with any pieces of broken glass, after murdering Meredith. And the victim didn't hear any of this stick poking around outside nor the rock being pounded or launched against the side of the house nor the efforts of someone scrambling up the wall and through the broken glass.

Undetected. No evidence to fit the scenario. Took nothing.

Not a burglary.

 

[stilicho]

If the investigators were truly evaluating the possibility of a break-in, they would have detailed photos of the window sill that would show if there were micro-scratches caused by someone climbing over the glass. They would have a detailed report including pictures of the clothes in the room and the layers where glass was found. They would recorded the marks on the floor where the rock landed indicating the direction and speed of impact. they would have detailed photos of the outside wall and window sill to show the presence or absence of marks indicating a climb up the wall. They would have photos of the ground below the window showing the pattern or absence of glass and any possible footprints. They would have located the origin of the rock and examined that area for evidence that might identify the perpetrator.

Did the investigators do any of this or did they just claim that they did what they should have done. Where is the contemporary evidence of what the investigators actually investigated? Where are the photographs?

The photographs I saw showed that they did treat it as a crimescene. There are even a few of them on Bruce's site. Your assertions are unsupportable by the evidence.

 

[quadraginta]

I passionaly believe the case against Amanda and Raffaele is not proven by the evidence we have. I've started a separate thread to examine the question of whether Rudy could be responsible as a lone wolf. That was obviously a direction that the guilters did not want to be examined.

Trying to re-write history, Dan O.?

You started this thread, "Could Rudy Guede alone have killed Meredith Kercher?". In it you included this stricture ...

<snip>

For this thread, any discussion of Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito being at the scene when the murder occurred is strictly off topic.
<snip>

(Emphasis highlighting in original, by Dan O.)

Your 'rules' were so patently absurd, and the derision you deservedly received was so unanimous that you fled back here to relative safety.

You didn't want a discussion about whether Rudy was a lone wolf or not. You wanted a fantasy thread where no evidence about Sollecito or Knox could be brought to the table. There was "obviously a direction that" someone "did not want to be examined" in that thread, but it had nothing to do with "guilters" (whoever they are.)

 

[Fulcanelli]

I passionaly believe the case against Amanda and Raffaele is not proven by the evidence we have. I've started a separate thread to examine the question of whether Rudy could be responsible as a lone wolf. That was obviously a direction that the guilters did not want to be examined.

Yes, but Dan_O, don't get all politic and coy here. You firmly believe Rudy murdered Meredith and is responsible for all the crimes committed at the cottage do you not?

 

[quadraginta]

If the investigators were truly evaluating the possibility of a break-in, they would have detailed photos of the window sill that would show if there were micro-scratches caused by someone climbing over the glass. They would have a detailed report including pictures of the clothes in the room and the layers where glass was found. They would recorded the marks on the floor where the rock landed indicating the direction and speed of impact. they would have detailed photos of the outside wall and window sill to show the presence or absence of marks indicating a climb up the wall. They would have photos of the ground below the window showing the pattern or absence of glass and any possible footprints. They would have located the origin of the rock and examined that area for evidence that might identify the perpetrator.

Did the investigators do any of this or did they just claim that they did what they should have done. Where is the contemporary evidence of what the investigators actually investigated? Where are the photographs?

Good question.

According to Charlie Wilkes there are gigabytes of Spheron-VR imagery from the apartment. In his possession. Certainly they didn't use that sort of equipment on just one room. Spheron-VR produces high resolution images of 360 degrees in both horizontal and vertical planes. Those images would show every exposed surface in every room it was used.

Where are the photographs?

Charlie? You listening?

 

[Fulcanelli]

If the investigators were truly evaluating the possibility of a break-in, they would have detailed photos of the window sill that would show if there were micro-scratches caused by someone climbing over the glass. They would have a detailed report including pictures of the clothes in the room and the layers where glass was found. They would recorded the marks on the floor where the rock landed indicating the direction and speed of impact. they would have detailed photos of the outside wall and window sill to show the presence or absence of marks indicating a climb up the wall. They would have photos of the ground below the window showing the pattern or absence of glass and any possible footprints. They would have located the origin of the rock and examined that area for evidence that might identify the perpetrator.

Did the investigators do any of this or did they just claim that they did what they should have done. Where is the contemporary evidence of what the investigators actually investigated? Where are the photographs?

Are you unable to blow up the photos?

Who said they 'don't' have photos of the ground beneath? If they aren't on the Web, then they don't exist...is that it?

 

[shuttlt]

This reminds me of the negative controls. Somewhere in the pro-Amanda camp there is a source that says they have the entire case file in their gift. They show/give portions of it to people, like Dr Waterbury under some sort of condition of anonymity and possibly under condition that the bulk of the data is not made public. This portion of the case file is said to be complete in respect to some angle of the case. Claims are then made on the basis of this data. In order to accept these claims we have to trust that the person making the claim is fairly representing the data given to them by the secret source and also trust that the secret source is correct in saying that the data they have given/shown to the claimant is complete and correct. How do we know that no negative controls were not done? Essentially we are relying on the assurance of an anonymous pro-Amanda source. How do we know no detailed photographs exist of Filomena's room? We must rely on the assurance of an anonymous pro-Amanda source. This really is no way to do things in a case where accusations of lying, misrepresentation and conspiracies have been flying around for two years.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Shuttit -

It is basically 'take our word for it'. And that sums up most of the assertions they make.

 

[tsig]

Smashing the window from the inside can also have similar effects, depending on how it was done. It's not enough to show it 'could' have been done that way in order to claim it 'was' done that way. One also has to rule out the other ways it could have happened.

You also are not taking into account all the other variables. Filomena disturbed the room. She lifted up her items and shook glass off of them, to see if anything was missing and to find her computer and may also have kicked or trod glass around by moving around. This means detailed theories built on the positioning of the glass in the room 'after' her entry cannot be made, especially as the before was not recorded.

You also are ignoring other important established factors. We know the rock was not thrown from outside since, not only is it highly unlikely (the neighbours could hear screams and running but not a giant rock being flung through the window like a tank shell, the illogical and unlikely entry point the window would have made etc,), but since we know the outside shutters were closed tightly, albeit not latched. To keep insisting the rock was thrown from outside is no more then a point of 'religious faith' combined with a bloody minded determination not to concede the point for winning's sake and is frankly, risible verging on the pathetic.

How did a rock from the outside get thru the closed shutters to break the glass?

It seems to me that a rock from outside would just drive the shutters tighter closed.

This may have been answered but if was I don't recall seeing it.


ETA: I see Kestrel has a theory.

 

[tsig]

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?
2. What kept glass from the broken window from sliding out the slots of the exterior shutter?
3. How was the impact mark with embedded glass on the outside surface of the interior shutter created?
4. How did the broken glass end up scattered across the floor of Filomena's room?

It would take a long stick to open the shutters so what happened to it?
Or did he climb up and open the shutters then climb back down and throw the rock then climb back up and open the window?

 

[stilicho]

It would take a long stick to open the shutters so what happened to it?
Or did he climb up and open the shutters then climb back down and throw the rock then climb back up and open the window?

And he had gloves on. These were taken off to attack Meredith. They were put back on to take her cell phones. They were taken back off again to handle her handbag. They were put back on again to close the door to her room before he washed the floor with a mop he probably brought to the cottage along with his shutter-opening stick and two knives.

The mystery intruder was so burdened with all the things he had to bring with him for the B&E that he actually forgot to steal anything. But he did leave his stool in the toilet.

 

[shuttlt]

It would take a long stick to open the shutters so what happened to it?
Or did he climb up and open the shutters then climb back down and throw the rock then climb back up and open the window?

That is certainly one of the theories.

 

[Kestrel]

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.

Let me explain.

The prosecution wants us to believe that Amanda or Raffaele broke the window with the rock the morning after the murder.

But that raises a question of how they managed to do this during daytime without the neighbors noticing. So the prosecutor goes a step further, claiming the window was broken from the inside.

This raises the question of how the damage to the interior shutter was created. The answer we have heard is that the window was opened and the rock smashed against the window and interior shutter.

Now the problem is that the broken glass on the window sill, with the area that would be covered by the closed window free of glass is not explained. Nor is the pattern of glass extending all the way across the room on the floor. This problem is solved by having the suspects hold something under the window the catch the glass and then placing the shards by hand to precisely simulate a rock being thrown from outside with the window closed.

The simple solution of throwing a rock and breaking a window has been rejected in favor of an increasingly complex sequence of events driven by the need to prove a conspiracy.

Occam's razor should apply to reasoning in this forum as well as the CT forum.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

The simple solution of throwing a rock and breaking a window has been rejected in favor of an increasingly complex sequence of events driven by the need to prove a conspiracy.

You are recommending that one should consider the complexity of the conspiracy being described when evaluating alternative hypotheses?

Occam's razor should apply to reasoning in this forum as well as the CT forum.

Good advice. Perhaps you should take it.

 

[shuttlt]

Shuttit -

It is basically 'take our word for it'. And that sums up most of the assertions they make.

Yes. In a nutshell it is a long way of saying 'take our word for it'. And if we were going to do that, why not just have an anonymous source who may or may not be a member of FOA and/or work for the PR company, or possibly be a member of the family tell us that they have looked at all the evidence and there is just no way a rational person could think Amanda and Raffaele are guilty?

I don't mean to imply that Halides1, or Charlie, or whoever are intentionally making a "take my friends word for it" argument, they presumably know who the source is and are presumably convinced that their source is reliable. If you don't share the belief in the source though these arguments carry almost no weight. Both sides are accusing the other of conspiracies and deliberate falsehood. At the end of the day Deep Throat's evidence has to check out. Nobody would be talking about Watergate if the story had just been "we met a guy who's totally reliable, but we can't tell you who, and he showed us a bunch of evidence that proves conclusively the President is a crook, but we can't show it to you. Here are a couple of bits of the evidence that don't really prove anything, but look kind of odd and are compatible with our theory".