Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kestrel said:
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.
Click to expand...

Or at night. But anyway, during the morning you'd have had the sound of the town waking up, rather then the still of night. And the way I see it, you have exactly the same problem, if not a greater one. You are expecting us to accept that Rudy flung a 9lb rock, with force, through a window at night and nobody noticed the blast. How would that be?

Yet, a bang against the glass from within the room, in the hubbub of the morning, with the shutters closed is a viable explanation as to why the sound was not an issue, is it not?

Kestrel said:
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.
Click to expand...

You've yet to explain how no glass fell on the ground outside, which is a far greater problem in sophistry land is it not?

We have the testimony of one reliable witness that the shutters were firmly closed over. We have the clear evidence from the glass that the shutters were shut. Yoyr dosproval of this evidence 'is'?

Occam's razor? You quote that? You've got some neck!!!
 
Kestrel said:
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.
Click to expand...

You think my theory is complex, and I need to explain how glass got on the sill?

I thought it was simple enough that two idiots could do it (and get caught).
 
shuttlt said:
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".
Click to expand...

Shuttit, I'm not even going to try wading into the psychology of these people. I really don't know what drives them. I've tried to suss it, but I just can't put myself there. I advise you don't either...if only for the sake of your own humanity. Strong words, but strong reasons for saying them.

Never have I felt the need for having so many showers since I got involved in this case.
 
Fulcanelli said:
Shuttit, I'm not even going to try wading into the psychology of these people. I really don't know what drives them. I've tried to suss it, but I just can't put myself there. I advise you don't either...if only for the sake of your own humanity. Strong words, but strong reasons for saying them.

Never have I felt the need for having so many showers since I got involved in this case.
Click to expand...
You may be right Fulcanelli. I'm not deep enough in, nor well enough connected to know what you know. I've had some nice and friendly contact with some of the pro-Amanda crowd (the anonymous ones are generally *********), but then I suppose one can smile and smile and be a villain. Tough to know and tougher still to prove.
 
odeed said:
You think my theory is complex, and I need to explain how glass got on the sill?

I thought it was simple enough that two idiots could do it (and get caught).
Click to expand...

Your theory is that they opened the window and bashed the rock into the window, hitting the inner shutter. This theory does explain the damage to the inner shutter. But it doesn't explain the glass on the window sill and the lack of glass where the closed window would have covered the window sill. Therefore, you need to expand your theory to include how the broken window glass ended up where it did.

If you throw the rock from outside, no further manipulation of the glass is needed. The kinetic energy from the rock propels most of the glass into the room, a few pieces fall almost vertically and end up on the inner or outer window sill. There isn't a force propelling glass toward the outside, so we don't have glass flying out the window.
 
Last edited:
Kestrel said:
Your theory is that they opened the window and bashed the rock into the window, hitting the inner shutter. This theory doesn't explain the glass on the window sill and the lack of glass where the closed window would have covered the window sill. Therefore, you need to expand your theory to include how the broken window glass ended up where it did.

If you throw the rock from outside, no further manipulation of the glass is needed. The kinetic energy from the rock propels most of the glass into the room, a few pieces fall almost vertically and end up on the inner or outer window sill. There isn't a force propelling glass toward the outside, so we don't have glass flying out the window.
Click to expand...

The same way as the glass got near the bed, they had something underneath to catch the glass, and in scattering the glass around the room they thought they would put glass on the sill.

And if you look at the pictures on http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/window.html you can see that the sill is a good few inches in depth and the glass only covers half of it (at guess), I cannot see any glass past the hinges of the exterior shutters in those pictures.
 
Kestrel said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's because you are assuming that the whole window will be imparted with forward momentum, while actually it will only be a relatively small part of the window glass that will be imparted with forward momentum.

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.
Click to expand...
The problem you face here is that the inside shutter first has to open sufficiently wide before glass can enter the room. So now you're left with 2 options. 1)That inside shutter doesn't open fast enough and allows both the big and small pieces of glass to drop on the window sill. 2)Or The inside shutter does open fast enough to allow those small pieces of glass to fly into the room. The problem you face is the smaller pieces of glass pick up velocity easily and the big pieces less so (mostly because the big pieces of glass are not caused directly by the rock). So please explain how those big pieces of glass end up on the window sill.

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?
Click to expand...
I never claimed to be sure that the shutters were closed, i was just answering the question you asked and that involved the outside shutter being closed.

Perhaps it did reach the outside shutter... it would still depend on the actual space between the individual slats, the angle of the slats, size of the glass pieces, etc., if glass could actually fall through.

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.
Click to expand...
First I would like a cite that glass was embedded on the inside shutter.
Second, I never said that they only swung the rock once, now did I?

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.
Click to expand...
If the inside shutter is closed, how then did those smaller pieces of glass get into the room? Especially if you consider that the larger pieces of glass still manage to land on the window sill.


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.
Click to expand...
In the area where between the desk chair and the wall, approximately where the black paper bag is.
 
Personally I think only some tests on similar windows with similar shutters can begin to resolve this. We've all got gut reactions to how we think the glass in the window would react. Tests, or expert knowledge are required here. Do any of us have enough experience of objects flying through shuttered windows to really KNOW what would happen?
 
shuttlt said:
Personally I think only some tests on similar windows with similar shutters can begin to resolve this. We've all got gut reactions to how we think the glass in the window would react. Tests, or expert knowledge are required here. Do any of us have enough experience of objects flying through shuttered windows to really KNOW what would happen?
Click to expand...

The first few seconds of this Italian news report shows a rock flying through a similar shuttered window.
 
When i look at the picture Bruce provided I am thinking how easy it would be to have both the interior shutter and window open to the side as in that photo and throw a rock into it shattering the glass (and hitting the shutter behind it making a dent) that lands only on the sill on that side and primarily on the pile of clothes right there. This scenario means the rock came in the same direction as if it was thrown from outside but explains why there is no glass on the ground below. You also do not have to take into account the exterior shutters.
 
Amazer said:
First I would like a cite that glass was embedded on the inside shutter.
Click to expand...

It's mentioned in the Micheli Report.
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
Click to expand...

Bruce's site has good photos of the inner shutter, see the fourth photo on this page.

The spot where the rock hit also answers one of your other questions. If you can solve the following problem, the answer should be clear:

Assume the rock hits the shutter 10 cm from the hinged side. After the rock hits, the place where the rock hit the shutter has a velocity of 1 meters/sec.

What is the velocity of a point on the shutter 20 cm from the hinged side?
 
Amazer said:
And did you notice where the rock landed up?
Click to expand...

Do you understand that by varying the conditions of the test, you can change the final resting place of the rock? Change where the rock thrower is standing, the point where the rock hits the shutter, or the velocity of the rock and the final resting place of the rock will be different.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom