Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
quadraginta said:
I'd be interested to know more about that myself, but I have trouble associating it with Charlie's claims, although I have a premonition about that.

Charlie expressed no concerns about any legal impediments to sharing what he claimed he had, only about issues of bandwidth and storage. My premonition is that new concerns are forthcoming.

If legal barriers are an issue then quantity should not pertain. One document's unauthorized release is no less egregious than a thousand from that perspective. This sort of tactic is more commonly indictive of someone seeking a semi-plausible explanation for cherry-picking the evidence they present, and explaining the murkiness of that evidence's provenance.

If the totality of the evidence they possess is in Knox's favor (as they claim) and they are seeking a test in the court of public opinion (as Bruce has claimed) then there is no real impediment to putting all their info on the table. By offering pieces of it they have already kicked the door open. They might as well go on in. It's that first "if" which is the only logical barrier to full disclosure.
Click to expand...

I'm having a real hard time believing that anything posted here would have any effect whatsoever on Italian judges.

It the IJS is so corrupt then Amanda's family could have spent their money to much better effect.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
One point does need to be clarified. I do list 99% of my sources. My site is filled with references. This entire conversation is in regard to the photograph and video evidence.
Click to expand...
Are you able to help with the Giobbi statement about the pizza being suspicious? At the moment the only apparently direct quote from that that I have been able to find anywhere is the word "meeting", presumably even this is a translation. Aside from that the only sources are summaries, I presume based on the one from the 48 Hours Mysteries page.
 
Last edited:
quadraginta said:
If legal barriers are an issue then quantity should not pertain. One document's unauthorized release is no less egregious than a thousand from that perspective. This sort of tactic is more commonly indictive of someone seeking a semi-plausible explanation for cherry-picking the evidence they present, and explaining the murkiness of that evidence's provenance.
Click to expand...
It may be that a few documents here and there aren't worth anybody in authorities time bothering with, but if somebody released the entire case file onto the internet things would be different.
 
RoseMontague said:
Kestrel said:
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?
Click to expand...

When a rock is thrown through a window a good portion of the glass shatters and moves in the direction opposite of the impact. Here is an article on the forensics of glass breaking that states:

In cases such as breaking and entering, as much as thirty-percent of the glass fragments will not travel in the direction of the blow, but instead towards the perpetrator.
Click to expand...
http://socyberty.com/crime/forensic-examination-of-glass/

If the other side of the window was still closed it would explain why there are no glass shards on that side, even in this scenario. Was broken glass found on the ground under the window?

<snip>
Click to expand...

This is very good work, Rose. Thank you.

I'll be interested to hear Kestrel's response, in view of his efforts to educate us all on the basics of physics, and on the impossibility of that behavior in particular.

While he's at it he might as well explain how he determined that "After the rock hits, the place where the rock hit the shutter has a velocity of 1 meters/sec." He seems to be in possession of a great deal more detailed information than the rest of us.
 
That sounds like a roundabout way of saying that the defense gave them out. Or someone "inside". Which would make the whole business even more curious. Oh well, whatever.
 
Some of the sources indicate the pizza was three days after the murder, so possibly the 4th of November. CBS makes it clear that it's three days after the discovery of the body, so the 5th:
The third incident, according to Giobbi, was the most disturbing. It occurred when the police picked up Rafaele Sollecito for questioning, three days after Kercher's body was discovered. Police located Sollecito at a cafe. It was three in the afternoon and Sollecito was eating a pizza. But Sollecito wasn't alone. Amanda Knox was also sharing the pizza. This so-called "meeting" helped convince Giobbi the couple had acted together in the murder.

"Knox and Sollecito never had a chance," says Paul Ciolino, a CBS News consultant and Chicago private investigator. Ciolino was at the 48 Hours meeting with Giobbi in 2008, and says, "If I had not been there, hearing this for myself, I would have never believed Giobbi would actually believe that eating a pizza was probable cause in a murder case."
Click to expand...
So, in the version that the Giobbi suspicious pizza story happens in, they are picked up at 3pm. We know they had classes in the morning. We know at 9pm they were eating again at 9pm and back at the police station for just after 10pm. Where they interrogated in the afternoon of the 5th released and then interrogated asked to come in again an hour or so later? I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned before if this did happen. If there were two interrogations perhaps that has something to do with the confusion over whether Amanda and Raffaele, or just Raffaele were told to come to the station.
 
quadraginta said:
This is very good work, Rose. Thank you.

I'll be interested to hear Kestrel's response, in view of his efforts to educate us all on the basics of physics, and on the impossibility of that behavior in particular.

While he's at it he might as well explain how he determined that "After the rock hits, the place where the rock hit the shutter has a velocity of 1 meters/sec." He seems to be in possession of a great deal more detailed information than the rest of us.
Click to expand...

With regard to the velocity of 1 meter/sec... i took that to be an arbitrary figure. Only used to emphasize the point that the outer edge of the shutter moves a great deal faster as compared to the speed at the point of impact.

This was presumably used to indicate that the shutter could have opened wide enough to allow glass pieces to enter the room instead of bouncing of the shutter.

Not that he ever clarified exactly what he was getting at... but that is how I understood it.
 
Amazer said:
With regard to the velocity of 1 meter/sec... i took that to be an arbitrary figure. Only used to emphasize the point that the outer edge of the shutter moves a great deal faster as compared to the speed at the point of impact.

This was presumably used to indicate that the shutter could have opened wide enough to allow glass pieces to enter the room instead of bouncing of the shutter.

Not that he ever clarified exactly what he was getting at... but that is how I understood it.
Click to expand...

That was the point, that the side of the shutter away from the hinge moves fast enough to get out of the way of the glass. I picked arbitrary numbers that would make the math trivial. Quadraginta should have understood that.

A secondary effect of the fast moving shutter is to draw air through the hole in the window.
 
Kestrel said:
That was the point, that the side of the shutter away from the hinge moves fast enough to get out of the way of the glass. I picked arbitrary numbers that would make the math trivial. Quadraginta should have understood that.

A secondary effect of the fast moving shutter is to draw air through the hole in the window.
Click to expand...

Glad to hear I understood what you are getting at.

It's not important anyways since it's clear that the outside shutters must have been closed. That is the only conceivable method with which no glass falls to the ground outside the cottage.

Unless you can think of another method by which that can be achieved?
 
For example, when a pane of glass is broken, minute glass fragments can be showered onto the hair, clothing and footwear of people in close proximity - at least 1.5 and possibly up to 3 metres away. The number of fragments transferred decreases rapidly with distance from the breaking pane. Aside from backwards projection of fragments towards the 'breaker', fragments can also be acquired, for example, by climbing through a broken window or treading on pieces of broken glass.
Click to expand...

http://www.forensic-access.co.uk/fo...tions/benchmark-newsletter/glass-analysis.htm
 
Amazer said:
Glad to hear I understood what you are getting at.

It's not important anyways since it's clear that the outside shutters must have been closed. That is the only conceivable method with which no glass falls to the ground outside the cottage.

Unless you can think of another method by which that can be achieved?
Click to expand...

The outside shutters were not definitely closed. We know that the shutters do not latch so even if they were pulled closed it would have taken seconds to climb up on the bars, pull them open, go back down and throw the rock. I personally believe that the shutters were open. Either way, they don't lock so it's not an important point.

As far as glass coming back at you, try it at home. Very small particles will fly back at the source. The police did not search for small glass dust outside. If they did they didn't tell anyone.
 
shuttlt said:
Are you able to help with the Giobbi statement about the pizza being suspicious? At the moment the only apparently direct quote from that that I have been able to find anywhere is the word "meeting", presumably even this is a translation. Aside from that the only sources are summaries, I presume based on the one from the 48 Hours Mysteries page.
Click to expand...

I will see if I can dig this up. It would be good to add to the site. I believe I have a clip from the UK documentary.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
The outside shutters were not definitely closed. We know that the shutters do not latch so even if they were pulled closed it would have taken seconds to climb up on the bars, pull them open, go back down and throw the rock. I personally believe that the shutters were open. Either way, they don't lock so it's not an important point.

As far as glass coming back at you, try it at home. Very small particles will fly back at the source. The police did not search for small glass dust outside. If they did they didn't tell anyone.
Click to expand...

That 3 inch shard in my arm sure was a pesky piece of "dust".
 
Alt+F4 said:
I'm thinking that sites like Bruce's exist for one purpose: fundraising. Amanda's defense team must be very expensive in addition to all the traveling her family does from the U.S. to Italy and back. I recall reading somewhere that her parents both filed for bankruptcy.

The idea is not to influence the Italian judicial system but rather to get Americans to believe she has been railroaded and contribute to her defense fund. Websites and forum posts in English will have zero effect on the trial itself but they do make it more likely sympathic Americans will head over to PayPal.
Click to expand...

Your statement is silly. That is the only word for it. I have a link buried on the site for the defense fund. If I am actively trying to raise funds, I am not very good at it. I do believe that Amanda's family has been severely stressed financially due to this injustice. The site was not set up for that purpose.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
The police did not search for small glass dust outside. If they did they didn't tell anyone.
Click to expand...
Buce, what do you base this statement on? Presumably you don't have access to the case file. Is your statement based on it not being in the Motivations Report, or a personal assurance from somebody, or just that we'd probably have heard about it if they'd looked but hadn't found anything.

Apologies for badgering you, but do you know if video exists of Giobbi giving the interview about the suspicious pizza?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom