Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Bruce Fischer]

That 3 inch shard in my arm sure was a pesky piece of "dust".

Did you actually try it?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

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?

I answered your question about the video above. I need to find it for you. I will try to get to that. It would be good to add to the site.

I know that nothing was presented in court showing that they investigated the ground outside. There are also very few photos detailing the outside view and there is very limited video.

If something exists, I would love to see it. I just haven't seen anything to show any investigation.

 

[Amazer]

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.

Well, it's rather strange that there are pretty large pieces of glass on the outside window sill, right up to the point where the outside shutters would be if they were closed. Beyond that 'boundary' and then suddenly no glass.

But I guess we'll just have to accept this is what glass does, behave in strange and unexplained ways. Just like certain rocks.

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.

See above.

 

[shuttlt]

I answered your question about the video above. I need to find it for you. I will try to get to that. It would be good to add to the site.

Sorry, I must have missed it. Will it get a mention in the news section of your site when you find it, or should I keep an eye out for a mention here?

 

[RoseMontague]

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?

From the translated report:

It can moreover be observed that the presence of many pieces of glass on the outside part of the windowsill increases the probability of finding some small pieces of glass on the ground underneath, since there seems to be no reason for which so many pieces of glass would all stop just at the edge of the windowsill without any of them flying beyond the edge and falling down to the garden below. This situation, like all the other glaring inconsistencies, is adequately and satisfactorily explained if one supposes that the rock was thrown from the inside of the room, with the two shutters pulled inwards so that they blocked the pieces of glass from falling to the ground below, and once the glass had been broken from inside, the rock was set down at some place in the room, and the shutters were pushed towards the outside, being thus opened from within the room.

It would appear to me that they looked for even "small" pieces of glass.

 

[quadraginta]

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.

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.

If that was actually your intent, and not a failed effort to sound more authoritative than you really are, then you should have included some qualifiers such as "about" or "approximately". You made what seemed to be intended as a flat statement of fact. Would you like to have the whole thing quoted for context?

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

How much air do you expect to be drawn through the window by (what you claim is) a partially opened, louvered shutter moving at the approximate speed of a someone taking an idle stroll? You can express your answer as m³/s or total m³ for whatever duration you can demonstrate the event occurred. Please show your work and sources.

Just as a point of comparison a 2 knot wind would barely even make a sail billow out, and they are designed specifically to respond to air movement.

What exactly were you trying to prove by this nonspecific "1 meters/sec."?

 

[Kestrel]

Well, it's rather strange that there are pretty large pieces of glass on the outside window sill, right up to the point where the outside shutters would be if they were closed. Beyond that 'boundary' and then suddenly no glass.

You have been claiming that the shutters were closed, but the fact is the shutters were warped and don't close properly. The shutters in Filomena's room could not be latched.

It's also a problem that would be obvious to a potential burglar.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Well, it's rather strange that there are pretty large pieces of glass on the outside window sill, right up to the point where the outside shutters would be if they were closed. Beyond that 'boundary' and then suddenly no glass.

But I guess we'll just have to accept this is what glass does, behave in strange and unexplained ways. Just like certain rocks.


See above.

Please look at the photos again. I will post another close up of the glass that shows more detail of the ledge. Please also look for any fresh damage on the outside shutter from a rock slamming into it.

It has also been said that Rudy would have pushed glass off the ledge toward the ground. If you look at the ledge at least 60% of the ledge has very little glass on it giving plenty of room to enter. He would have pulled himself through the window. His body would have actually pushed glass toward the room not down to the ground.

He did not push off the ledge, he pulled him self over and into the room.

 

[RoseMontague]

Did you actually try it?

I have thrown a brick though a window before. Some of it, including some decent size pieces will come back at you. This is SOP. If I had only listened to Ernest T.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

From the translated report:



It would appear to me that they looked for even "small" pieces of glass.

Yes, the report makes the assumption that there was no pieces of glass but where is the proof of this? The motivation report should be not looked at as a source for evidence. The report is an opinion based on the evidence provided. So where is the evidence to back up the assumption?

I obviously disagree with the motivation report. If these reports were always correct, there would be no need for the appeals process.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Sorry, I must have missed it. Will it get a mention in the news section of your site when you find it, or should I keep an eye out for a mention here?

I will try to do both. I have a lot going on right now. There are two new articles from Steve Moore coming soon. I am also detailing the long list of lies and misinformation that is provided in Barbie's book along with an interesting article about Rudy Guede. If you are interested, I post site updates on the Recent News and Updates page.

 

[Kestrel]

How much air do you expect to be drawn through the window by (what you claim is) a partially opened, louvered shutter moving at the approximate speed of a someone taking an idle stroll? You can express your answer as m³/s or total m³ for whatever duration you can demonstrate the event occurred. Please show your work and sources.

Just as a point of comparison a 2 knot wind would barely even make a sail billow out, and they are designed specifically to respond to air movement.

What exactly were you trying to prove by this nonspecific "1 meters/sec."?

I picked a figure to make the math trivial. That should have been clear to anyone who actually thought about the problem.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

I have thrown a brick though a window before. Some of it, including some decent size pieces will come back at you. This is SOP. If I had only listened to Ernest T.

Why did you break a window? I wasted three pieces of perfectly good glass in my garage and I had one notable piece of glass come back at me in three tries.

The only way to know what was on the ground the morning after the murder is to see high resolution close up photographs of the ground. Nothing was presented in court.

 

[quadraginta]

That 3 inch shard in my arm sure was a pesky piece of "dust".

Bruce and Kestrel seem to be more intent on argument by incredulity than in doing any research on their own.

All they would have to do is Google "backward glass fragmentation", and they would find a wealth of quite scholarly and well documented references.

Of course the references would support you, which is probably why they haven't done that.

 

[RoseMontague]

Yes, the report makes the assumption that there was no pieces of glass but where is the proof of this? The motivation report should be not looked at as a source for evidence. The report is an opinion based on the evidence provided. So where is the evidence to back up the assumption?

I obviously disagree with the motivation report. If these reports were always correct, there would be no need for the appeals process.

I see it as quite possible the window was broken by the rock inside the room with the window and interior shutter pulled to the left (as you face out) just as in picture 105 you provided. The direction of the strike would be from the same direction in relation to the window as if you were outside and the windows closed. This could cause the same dent in the interior shutter and if the exterior shutters were closed and the interior glass and shutter closed on the right side this would account for the strange pattern of glass on the window sill. I don't see Rudy crawling over that sill leaving almost half of it undisturbed as being very likely.

 

[shuttlt]

Yes, the report makes the assumption that there was no pieces of glass but where is the proof of this? The motivation report should be not looked at as a source for evidence. The report is an opinion based on the evidence provided. So where is the evidence to back up the assumption?

How do you know it is an assumption? You don't have access to the case file. Do you really have sufficient access to be able to say, "if I haven't heard about it, the police didn't do it"? As for where the evidence is, it's in the case file I presume. The court has no obligation to provide us with this, hence it is unreasonable to expect or demand a case beyond reasonable doubt to be available to the public.

 

[Jungle Jim]

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:

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.

Maybe the dates and dinners are jumbled? This what christianahannah wrote in post #7658:

There is a pizzeria receipt of Raffaele's photographed by the police with the date of 04-11-2007. The receipt can be viewed at Bruce Fisher's site under the Lies & Misinformation column.

I do not know if this is the same date that Giobbi speaks of concerning Amanda and Raffaele. Obviously, this receipt is dated one day prior to their questioning at the station.

I looked at the receipt (http://injusticeinperugia.org/receipts.html) and it is dated 4-11-07. However, there is a date stamp on the photo that obscures the next set of numbers which might be the time (or it might not). If it is the time, it reads, 17?? which would be 5:??pm to us Americans.

And just to keep what we think we know about the dining of AK and RS in one area:

From the PMF time line as shown in post #7634:

Monday 5th Nov, 2007

1400 - 1600 Rosa Natalia Guman Fernendez de Calle, RS' cleaning lady, cleans RS' apartment for the last time. She worked for him for about 2 months and would come every Monday from about 2-4pm to clean his apartment. She stated that she used only "lysoform" which is like a general household cleaner like Mr. Clean. She would vaccum, mop the floor, clean the bathroom, kitchen, etc. They kept the cleaning products under the kitchen sink like in most homes, and there were usually about 5-6 different cleaning products as well as cleaning supplies. But she was told to ONLY use "lysoform" to clean. RS and AK were there.

From Amanda's testimony:

LG: All right, I've exhausted this topic. Now, I said we were just coming to the evening when you were called in, or rather when Raffaele was called in to the Questura on Nov 5. Where did you come from? Were you having dinner somewhere? Do you remember?

AK: We were at the apartment of a friend of his, who lived near his house, and we were having dinner with them, trying, I don't know, to feel a bit of normality, when Raffaele was called by the police.

From the Perugia Shock blog referenced in post #7624:

Giobbi, chief of Direzione Centrale Anticrimine of Rome, said today in court that on the evening of the 5th he gave the order to bring Amanda and Raffaele together at the police station...And Edgardo was sure, and provided even details to make his version credible. I'm mathematically sure that I gave that order, in that moment our attention was on Amanda and Raffaele, I decided that we needed to hear them together in order to study their reactions. We called them and they were eating in a pizzeria.

To Summarize:
On Nov. 4th RS and presumably AK (two pizzas were paid for) ate at a pizzeria. The time could possibly be 5:??pm.

On Nov. 5th at 3:00pm AK & RS were either in RS's apartment or eating in a pizzeria. Sometime before 10:00pm AK and RS were either having dinner (a) at a friend's place or (b) at a pizzeria. Does that about cover it?

 

[Amazer]

Please look at the photos again. I will post another close up of the glass that shows more detail of the ledge. Please also look for any fresh damage on the outside shutter from a rock slamming into it.

There are a couple of ways that the window was broken from inside the room that do not involve the rock coming into contact, or very light contact with the outside shutter. Rose has mentioned one scenario, I have mentioned another.

It has also been said that Rudy would have pushed glass off the ledge toward the ground. If you look at the ledge at least 60% of the ledge has very little glass on it giving plenty of room to enter. He would have pulled himself through the window. His body would have actually pushed glass toward the room not down to the ground.

He did not push off the ledge, he pulled him self over and into the room.

You should try some climbing... you'd be surprised at all the stuff that you pull towards yourself while you are climbing up.

 

[quadraginta]

I picked a figure to make the math trivial. That should have been clear to anyone who actually thought about the problem.

I thought about it. You picked a very specific number, presumably to make a very specific point. Now you claim that the number was pointless, as was your comment, apparently.

What exactly is the significance of the shutter moving at approximately 1 m/s after it was impacted by the allegedly thrown rock?

What effect do you suggest that the air displaced by such an event would have on the scene?

You do realize, don't you, that the approximate volume of air displaced at the approximate velocity you specified would only gently disturb a cloud of smoke? I'm unclear what significant effect you believe it would have on a cloud of glass fragments.

 

[shuttlt]

Why did you break a window? I wasted three pieces of perfectly good glass in my garage and I had one notable piece of glass come back at me in three tries.

Was the glass in a frame, or not? I would expect a solid frame to make a big difference to how it breaks.

The only way to know what was on the ground the morning after the murder is to see high resolution close up photographs of the ground. Nothing was presented in court.

I certainly don't have access to enough court documents to be sure what was and wasn't presented. As I've said umpteen times, Steffanoni was on the stand for two days and how much of what she said do we know about? Was the photo of the knife draw shown in court, if it was was it reported?

Personally I would have said that the only way to be sure what was on the ground would be for the police to have done a fingertip search and maybe hoovered the ground. How many detailed photographs would you need in order to demonstrate that there were no tiny pieces of glass? I guess it could be done for big pieces of glass, but then you wouldn't need high res close up photographs of the ground to demonstrate that there were no big pieces.