Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Amazer]

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.

Sure, but we all know that the locations this rock could have been thrown from are rather limited. And the different locations all have an impact on the potential velocity of the rock, and thus where the rock could have landed up considering it's impact point on the inside shutter.

The place that would allow the rock to achieve the required velocity most easily would be road, behind the railing. But if the rock is thrown from the road, the thrower has to run around the house before being able to climb up the window. Plenty of time for Meredith to investigate and then call the police or to call the police immediately. Since that didn't happen I think we can safely assume that the rock wasn't thrown from the roadside.

Next position is standing below the window and throwing the rock from there... IMO the damage to the inside shutter is inconsistent with this scenario. So again unlikely that this is what happened. Besides, in this scenario it is really impossible for the rock to end up where it did in the black paper bag.

Next possibility, the rock thrower climbs up and throws the rock from there. Besides the obvious danger of having glass shattered all over your face and in your eyes. Are you really going to hang on by your finger tips (from one hand) from the window sill, lean back, in order to throw the rock? This scenario doesn't seem very likely either. Besides, it's unlikely that this way you can achieve sufficient velocity to have the rock land up where it did in the black paper bag.

If you feel that I'm wrong with my reasoning, explain why. If you feel I've overlooked a location from where the rock could have been thrown, discuss it.

 

[Amazer]

It's mentioned in the Micheli Report.


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?

I'll admit that glass is not my area of specialization. I might think that it behaves in ways that it doesn't. Perhaps we would be better served if someone who has experience in this field explains it.

 

[Dan O.]

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?

Whom in this thread have stated unequivocally who the murderer is?

[Post 2188]
Author : stilicho
Date : 20th January 2010 04:41 PM
Unfortunately, I don't have copies of every single word she said and wrote from the night she murdered Meredith until her conviction.

[Post 3505]
Author : tsig
Date : 11th February 2010 09:06 PM
Amanda is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Post 4552]
Author : Fulcanelli
Date : 6th March 2010 05:37 PM
The only fact that has certainty is that Amanda, along with Raffaele and Rudy murdered Meredith.

[Post 5625]
Author : BobTheDonkey
Date : 23rd March 2010 04:56 PM
I'm going to go ahead and take it all the way back to these two should not have murdered Meredith. That would be one sure-fire way for the two to not spend the next 15-20 behind bars...

[Post 6175]
Author : Alt+F4
Date : 5th April 2010 09:09 AM
Except for the fact that Amanda murdered her.
​

Everyone else is closer to earning the title "skeptic".

 

[tsig]

Whom in this thread have stated unequivocally who the murderer is?

[Post 2188]
Author : stilicho
Date : 20th January 2010 04:41 PM
Unfortunately, I don't have copies of every single word she said and wrote from the night she murdered Meredith until her conviction.

[Post 3505]
Author : tsig
Date : 11th February 2010 09:06 PM
Amanda is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Post 4552]
Author : Fulcanelli
Date : 6th March 2010 05:37 PM
The only fact that has certainty is that Amanda, along with Raffaele and Rudy murdered Meredith.

[Post 5625]
Author : BobTheDonkey
Date : 23rd March 2010 04:56 PM
I'm going to go ahead and take it all the way back to these two should not have murdered Meredith. That would be one sure-fire way for the two to not spend the next 15-20 behind bars...

[Post 6175]
Author : Alt+F4
Date : 5th April 2010 09:09 AM
Except for the fact that Amanda murdered her.
​

Everyone else is closer to earning the title "skeptic".

Dan we know what our position is, the question was "what is your position"?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Kestrel, perhaps you can address the points/questions I've raised concerning the scenario as you've presented. Notably: how the window was unlatched, how the wall was scaled, why there is no glass in the garden, and why there is a definite line in the glass on the windowsill (and why it appears to line up with the shutters)

 

[stilicho]

Everyone else is closer to earning the title "skeptic".

Actually, we're mostly critical of your thinking.

 

[stilicho]

I'll admit that glass is not my area of specialization. I might think that it behaves in ways that it doesn't. Perhaps we would be better served if someone who has experience in this field explains it.

The main problem with arguing about these Kestrelic fantasies is that he begins from a false premise. That premise is that none of the alternate hypotheses--including but not limited to breaking the window from the outside and scaling the wall--were considered or tested by investigators.

We can strongly believe this is not true since the photos we have show that of a crimescene (eg the little cards) and the parts of the sentencing report that we know about mention the investigation of the exterior wall and other details.

Kestrel and his ilk are simply handwaving away this investigative work because it hasn't been posted here, in full, in English, and with all the police photographs. This borders on dishonesty since he knows the work was done.

 

[Dan O.]

Dan we know what our position is, the question was "what is your position"?

I've stated what my position is. Is it so hard to accept that someone can be skeptical, especially given the volume of information that isn't available to the public yet. I guess that could be another defining characteristic that separates the guilters from skeptics.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I've stated what my position is. Is it so hard to accept that someone can be skeptical, especially given the volume of information that isn't available to the public yet. I guess that could be another defining characteristic that separates the guilters from skeptics.

This coming from the guy who started the thread wherein no evidence contrary to his opinion could be presented or referenced? if that is what you feel makes one a"skeptic", Im not sure I want to subscribe to your brand of "skepticism"..

 

[Kestrel]

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.

If you do this, you have to put something under the window to catch the broken glass and then place all the broken glass by hand to make it look like the rock was thrown from outside the window.

How long do you think it would take to do this?

 

[Amazer]

The main problem with arguing about these Kestrelic fantasies is that he begins from a false premise. That premise is that none of the alternate hypotheses--including but not limited to breaking the window from the outside and scaling the wall--were considered or tested by investigators.

We can strongly believe this is not true since the photos we have show that of a crimescene (eg the little cards) and the parts of the sentencing report that we know about mention the investigation of the exterior wall and other details.

Kestrel and his ilk are simply handwaving away this investigative work because it hasn't been posted here, in full, in English, and with all the police photographs. This borders on dishonesty since he knows the work was done.

While I suspect that you are right about the handwaving by Kestrel, it's still a good exercise for myself. To see if I can work out what is likely and what is not. To create a credible scenario that fits with the facts as we know them.

And then to compare it with both the defense scenario and the prosecution scenario and see what matches more closely.

 

[Kestrel]

Sure, but we all know that the locations this rock could have been thrown from are rather limited. And the different locations all have an impact on the potential velocity of the rock, and thus where the rock could have landed up considering it's impact point on the inside shutter.

The place that would allow the rock to achieve the required velocity most easily would be road, behind the railing. But if the rock is thrown from the road, the thrower has to run around the house before being able to climb up the window. Plenty of time for Meredith to investigate and then call the police or to call the police immediately. Since that didn't happen I think we can safely assume that the rock wasn't thrown from the roadside.

Next position is standing below the window and throwing the rock from there... IMO the damage to the inside shutter is inconsistent with this scenario. So again unlikely that this is what happened. Besides, in this scenario it is really impossible for the rock to end up where it did in the black paper bag.

Next possibility, the rock thrower climbs up and throws the rock from there. Besides the obvious danger of having glass shattered all over your face and in your eyes. Are you really going to hang on by your finger tips (from one hand) from the window sill, lean back, in order to throw the rock? This scenario doesn't seem very likely either. Besides, it's unlikely that this way you can achieve sufficient velocity to have the rock land up where it did in the black paper bag.

If you feel that I'm wrong with my reasoning, explain why. If you feel I've overlooked a location from where the rock could have been thrown, discuss it.

Where the rock could have been thrown from isn't that limited. For example, you don't have to be directly below the window when throwing the rock from the lower level. Moving a meter or so to either side means the rock will not come back at you if you miss the window.

Also, why are you assuming Meredith was at home when the rock was thrown? Meredith didn't get home until slightly after 9 PM, before that time the cottage was empty.

 

[Amazer]

Where the rock could have been thrown from isn't that limited. For example, you don't have to be directly below the window when throwing the rock from the lower level. Moving a meter or so to either side means the rock will not come back at you if you miss the window.

Damage to the inside shutter is still inconsistent with a rock being thrown from a lower level. It doesn't matter if you move 1 meter left or right.

Also, why are you assuming Meredith was at home when the rock was thrown? Meredith didn't get home until slightly after 9 PM, before that time the cottage was empty.

That was indeed just an assumption on my part. In part because no valuables were missing from Philomena's room and I've not seen anything else being reported as missing (besides the phones of Meredith) either. It would seem rather strange to me that a would be robber first goes to the toilet and then ransacks the room that he first entered into without actually taking anything.

 

[Kestrel]

Damage to the inside shutter is still inconsistent with a rock being thrown from a lower level. It doesn't matter if you move 1 meter left or right.

Why do you believe the damage is inconsistent with the rock being thrown from the lower level?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

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.

There is an appeal trial underway. People who believe that Amanda is guilty can come online and say anything they like. People who believe in the innocence of Amanda have to be very careful not to interfere with the trial in any way. The online argument is far less important.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

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.

You don't know what drives us? The question is much more relevant when asked about you. We are fighting for two people that we feel have been wrongly convicted. It's very simple. No need to complicate everything.

 

[Amazer]

Why do you believe the damage is inconsistent with the rock being thrown from the lower level?

If you look at the point of impact... clearly made by the pointy end of the rock thrown/smashed at a right angle.

 

[Kestrel]

That was indeed just an assumption on my part. In part because no valuables were missing from Philomena's room and I've not seen anything else being reported as missing (besides the phones of Meredith) either. It would seem rather strange to me that a would be robber first goes to the toilet and then ransacks the room that he first entered into without actually taking anything.

In addition to her cell phones, Meredith's cash, credit cards, keys and a sweatshirt were taken.

My take is that Rudy's intent was robbery. Looking for cash so he could pay his rent. He climbed into Filomena's room, decided he needed a find a bathroom first. Then while he was sitting on the can, Meredith came home.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

.
Bruce, you keep repeating that you're not part of some pro Amanda Knox campaign, yet you are unable to indicate where you get your photos and copies of court documents from (as if you were a reporter protecting sensitive sources who can't be exposed).

Let me rephrase my question if it is easier to reply: instead of telling us the sources for your information, then tell us what contacts and relationships you have with the Knox-Mellas families, or their Amercian legal or PR representatives.

==================

This reminds me of Halides1 slipping up (from his point of view) when he affirmatively stated that he knew that "Libby" Johnson was "working pro bono". However, when he was asked for whom Johnson worked, he suddenly went silent.

This is the reason that I decided that I should no longer participate. I am not at liberty to discuss my sources. It has been said that this isn't acceptable on this forum. If that is the case then I have to exit the discussion. I don't think anyone has said that the photos I have provided are not authentic. I haven't heard anyone say that the photos aren't credible. Those would be the important questions that I would ask.

 

[Fiona]

Well that does not make much sense to me. People who are directly involved in the trial, such as the lawyers, do have to be careful. But if those who are seeking to sway public opinion feel themselves constrained in what they can say, then that is not reflected at all in the reporting I have seen so far. The online and media argument is certainly less important than the evidence presented in court and the trial itself. But insofar as this has been taken out of the court and into the press and tv and online then it is open for examination. You can't have it both ways: either you have material which you can publish without affecting the appeal and you present it all: or you don't and you shut up. "Trust me because I have inside information which I cannot share" is not good enough: especially because we have seen extensive misrepresentation of the things we can check: such as the 14 or 40 or 53 hours of coercive interrorogation