Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[stilicho]

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.

So we're back to baseless assertions then. Pulled himself through the window how? How did he do this without leaving any evidence of having entered the room that way?

I offered an experiment you can do at home using Scrabble tiles instead of glass. All you need is a surface, a wall, and your fingertips.

 

[stilicho]

From the translated report:

Quote:
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.

Make sure you include a page number, Rose. Interesting to see how Bruce fits that with his assertion that there was no evidence of the ground having been investigated.

 

[shuttlt]

Maybe the dates and dinners are jumbled?

This is what I am wondering. Perhaps Bruce can clear things up a little if he is able to locate the clip of Giobbi talking about the suspicious pizza. The only importance of it is that the pro-Amanda sites are jumping on Giobbi and the police calling them liars on the basis of this incomprehensible mess of statements.

 

[quadraginta]

Make sure you include a page number, Rose. Interesting to see how Bruce fits that with his assertion that there was no evidence of the ground having been investigated.

Bruce fits it like this,

<snip>

The motivation report should be not looked at as a source for evidence. The report is an opinion based on the evidence provided.

<snip>

You see, the summary of the trial proceeding by the senior judge is an "opinion", unlike the "evidence" we are spoon fed from the FOA.

Apparently no evidence is produced for him to judge by during the course of the trial.

And his "opinion" is obviously suspect, prejudiced as it is by the evidence not presented during that trial.

Or either he is part of the conspiracy.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

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.

What's Google? You are confusing my simple mind.

 

[shuttlt]

The motivation report should be not looked at as a source for evidence. The report is an opinion based on the evidence provided.

I was just reading the latest ScienceSphere's theory of the murder and it strikes me that this quote applies equally well there.

 

[shuttlt]

What's Google

Does that mean Google's on second?

 

[quadraginta]

What's Google? You are confusing my simple mind.

Let me Google this for you.

 

[RoseMontague]

What's Google? You are confusing my simple mind.

He obviously knew about the backward projection of glass or he would not have broken some glass proving it. My experience with it is the result of simple hooliganism, many years ago. That is why I referenced the true expert, Ernest T. Bass.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Wall Climb

With all of this window talk we all know that the prosecution did not dispute the fact that entrance of the cottage could be gained through that window right?

This point was not disputed. Everyone agreed that the cottage could be entered through that window.

The prosecution bases their argument about staging on the glass and the condition of the room.

Both of those points have a wide range of debate.

Neither side can make a definitive statement about the glass. It is all speculation.

 

[shuttlt]

With all of this window talk we all know that the prosecution did not dispute the fact that entrance of the cottage could be gained through that window right?

This point was not disputed. Everyone agreed that the cottage could be entered through that window.

The prosecution bases their argument about staging on the glass and the condition of the room.

Both of those points have a wide range of debate.

Neither side can make a definitive statement about the glass. It is all speculation.

Bruce, this is the first post of any length from you in a while to whose every word I willingly give my complete and wholehearted support.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

I was just reading the latest ScienceSphere's theory of the murder and it strikes me that this quote applies equally well there.

I am happy to hear that you read Mark's newest article. It is very good. More to come on that.

My comment about the motivation report was a simple one. The report is an opinion based on evidence. The report cannot be used as evidence to prove a point. You need to look at the actual evidence.

 

[Amazer]

I was just reading the latest ScienceSphere's theory of the murder and it strikes me that this quote applies equally well there.

Oh boy... that site is worthy of being mentioned in the CT forums.

 

[Amazer]

I am happy to hear that you read Mark's newest article. It is very good. More to come on that.

Bruce, is that really your idea of a good article? I hope you are not serious....

 

[shuttlt]

I am happy to hear that you read Mark's newest article. It is very good. More to come on that.

My comment about the motivation report was a simple one. The report is an opinion based on evidence. The report cannot be used as evidence to prove a point. You need to look at the actual evidence.

But we only have a subset of the actual evidence. The case file must be 10's of thousands of pages. We have a fraction of 1% of it. Going back to Steffanoni's testimony, two days on the stand and we have a couple of paragraphs of what she actually said and a few very general summaries. If you take the position that the police, the prosecutor and the lab only did things for which you personally can find documentary evidence then you will inevitably come to the conclusion that the authorities made a half assed job of almost everything and only ever considered or investigated the theories that they announced to the public in press conferences.

We could take the same line with the defence and asume they did nothing and asked nothing for which their is not solid documentation. From that perspective they look like they slept through the trial and Amanda and Raffaele are where they are now because they hardly opened their mouths in the close to a year that the trial lasted.

 

[RoseMontague]

I am happy to hear that you read Mark's newest article. It is very good. More to come on that.

My comment about the motivation report was a simple one. The report is an opinion based on evidence. The report cannot be used as evidence to prove a point. You need to look at the actual evidence.

I just finished it as well. It has a nice lead in, well done and well written. As conspiracy theories go it's not as much of a stretch as some I have seen.

 

[shuttlt]

Oh boy... that site is worthy of being mentioned in the CT forums.

Indeed:

There are many things that we know but that are denied by those who have their own agendas. We know, for example, that there is no evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, because they are innocent. So we won’t even bother to debate that here. It is a fact, and one of the critical starting points for really understanding what has happened. Now we are moving beyond those debates.

That is, for me, the problem with Science Spheres right there. If you include your conclusions in your assumptions you're home free.

 

[Amazer]

With all of this window talk we all know that the prosecution did not dispute the fact that entrance of the cottage could be gained through that window right?

This point was not disputed. Everyone agreed that the cottage could be entered through that window.

The prosecution bases their argument about staging on the glass and the condition of the room.

Both of those points have a wide range of debate.

Neither side can make a definitive statement about the glass. It is all speculation.

Sure, it's all speculation. At least till someone fesses up as to what actually happened.

Till that happens though we can most certainly ascribe a level of probability to the scenarios that are being proposed.

 

[Kermit]

FOA high stepping ...

Kermit asked me for images that he was so sure I could not provide. He repeatedly left sarcastic comments in regard to these images.

The images have no bearing at all on the case. I posted them simply to show that Kermit is not the genius that he thinks he is.

.
Bruce, one thing you're not good at is spreading falsehoods.

My doubt all along, as reflected in my posts, concerns my suspicion that not all of the 5 supposed shoe prints on the pillow "match perfectly" the Nikes worn by Rudy, as you have repeatedly and vehemently stated.

I know you have the defence presentations and images.

I felt that you weren't posting more than the obvious two matches, because you had overstepped yourself in your vehemency, the other stains not being necessarily "perfect matches".

And you know what? I was right! (BTW, one doesn't have to be a genius to see through the FOA rhetoric. It honestly surprises me that FOA and The Entourage could believe that their antics may win over the hearts of the masses).

 

[Bruce Fischer]

.
Bruce, one thing you're not good at is spreading falsehoods.

My doubt all along, as reflected in my posts, concerns my suspicion that not all of the 5 supposed shoe prints on the pillow "match perfectly" the Nikes worn by Rudy, as you have repeatedly and vehemently stated.

I know you have the defence presentations and images.

I felt that you weren't posting more than the obvious two matches, because you had overstepped yourself in your vehemency, the other stains not being necessarily "perfect matches".

And you know what? I was right! (BTW, one doesn't have to be a genius to see through the FOA rhetoric. It honestly surprises me that FOA and The Entourage could believe that their antics may win over the hearts of the masses).

[qimg]http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/8020/foaperfectmatch.png[/qimg]

Is Raffaele's forensic expert FOA?

You took the small sample from the larger picture. You have really made a fool out of yourself with this post.

The prosecution agrees that these prints belong to Rudy. This is not disputed.

No one has ever claimed that Raffaele's print was anywhere on the pillow. Are you making that claim?

You turned the small sample around to "almost" match an area on another shoe. Did you forget that the small sample was taken from a larger image showing more of the print matching Rudy's Nike's?

Why are you trying to prove the prosecution wrong? They agree that these prints match Rudy.

You are simply doing this to try and discredit me. This has absolutely no bearing on the case.

Nice try.