Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Bruce Fischer]

If Raffaele continued to use the kitchen knife after the evening of the murder, then how come none of his DNA was found on it? I mean, it was his knife, and from his kitchen, whether it was the actual murder weapon or not (and I believe that it made the larger wound in Meredith, the one that almost went through her jaw and into her mouth), it still did not have any of his DNA on it, if I'm not mistaken.

Dishwasher?

 

[Amazer]

Bruce, Are you aware if anyone has studied the acceleration effects that the shade would have had on the glass fragments as it is propelled open by the striking rock?

No

I think some people have difficulty reconciling that the glass traveled so far into the room yet the rock landed much closer.

Perhaps... i'm not one of those people though.

If the rock expels it's momentum pushing the shade open, that would produce a sudden inrush of air that would blow the glass much further into the room and prevent glass from flying out.

That would really depend on the aerodynamic properties of the individual glass pieces. Most likely those properties are so small that the effects are too small to notice.

The reaction would also deflect the rock to the side away from the shutter.

Yes, the impact with the shutter most definitely deflects the rock from it's initial flight path.

Unfortunately (for Amanda supporters) rocks are not rubber balls, and don't act like them either. That means that unless you have a shallow angle (like you have if you skip a pebble over water) the rock transfers most of its energy on impact. It does this till the inside shutter has moved to such a extend that a shallow angle between rock and the shutter has been reached. Or till the rock runs out of energy to transfer.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

If I had been on the jury, I would have been open to persuasion regarding the knife. The only reason for the knife being involved that I could see is if they had gone along to scare Meredith as some kind of prank. The bra clasp, I find convincing. The fact that it remained in the room for so long, doesn't bother me. There have been loads of cases of DNA evidence coming up years after the event.

These two items are way down on the list, as far as I am concerned. The discrepancies between the various statements and the timeline of events, are what convinces me of their guilt. I don't know if I have been counted as one of the thirty. However, I would have thought that most sane individuals would see it this way.

The loads of DNA cases that you are referring to generally came from Evidence that was properly collected and stored.

By the way, I didn't realize that my number of people was going to be taken so seriously.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Dishwasher?

And Amanda's DNA on the handle?

She used it the day the officers went to Raffaele's apartment to collect it?

What about the indications that bleach had been used to clean/scrub the knife?

 

[Kermit]

I fooled you, I was only kidding

By the way, I didn't realize that my number of people was going to be taken so seriously.

Bruce, maybe you should indicate with a footnote those passages of your posts which we should take more or less seriously.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Here's what Raffaele said about the knife:

Trans: Thoughtful

Date: November 17, 2007

Raffaele Sollecito, 23, spent his first 10 days of prison searching for precise memories. Memories that are returning after the fog provoked by the hashish. He saw the television news on Thursday evening. And yesterday morning, when one of his lawyers, Tiziano Tedeschi, arrived at the prison, he asked him suddenly: "What do I have to do with that knife?" It was the knife which contained DNA traces of poor Meredith, and of Amanda, who is accused like Raffaele of homicide. "That huge knife was already at my house when I rented it. I never used that knife. Amanda used it when cutting onions." His own two pocket knives have also been confiscated; he has been carrying them since he was 13, and changed them to match his outfits. "But it's unbelievable," he said when he heard that the knife had been confiscated by the police, "that Amanda was going around with such a big kitchen knife, I simply can't believe it." A thousand words, in these difficult days, have been exchanged with his father, his father's new wife, his educators and his lawyers. Precise memories are beginning to return. "On that night, when Amanda came home, I remember having touched her hand. It was cold, like it was when she would come home at night after working at the pub. But for now I can't remember anything else. And if I can't remember, why should I tell a lie? The evening before Meredith died Amanda brought me make-up stuff for Halloween. She wanted to go to a disco, but I'm not 15 any more and I preferred a quiet pub. But Amanda is American, and for her Halloween is a really important night." Raffaele should have been going to Milan during those days. "Right after my degree, there would have been a party and a lunch with relatives and friends, and then in the evening, a romantic restaurant just for Amanda and me. Then, with my father, I would have left right away for Milan to enroll in a master's at Bocconi. My father inundated me with phone calls during those last days of freedom, sometimes even four a day. He wanted me to study and work on my (undergraduate) thesis. I had only written a draft. I was also calling home. One evening I asked for a recipe: I wanted to make a risotto for Amanda." Also childhood memories are becoming part of the defense. "I've always been scared of blood, since I was little. If I see blood I feel sick. I had barely spotted a trace of blood in the bathroom that morning and I had to step back. If I had gone into Meredith's room then I'd have died on the spot." The boy from Giovinazzo has destroyed Amanda's alibi, but he certainly doesn't forget the days spent with her. "She was my first real conquest. As a boy I was fat, everyone called me Cicciolone. I would look at myself in the mirror and I didn't like myself. I told myself there was only one thing to do: the gym, and more of the gym. I changed, and I felt better. When Amanda got together with me, I was very jealous. That's why I wanted her to sleep over at my place, so no one else could be looking at her. It was my first really important story." Even in a cell, Raffaele wants to be a good kid. "I asked for rags to clean up the bathroom. And even the bars. They're dusty."

REPUBBLICA

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=38313#p38313

 

[Dan O.]

That would really depend on the aerodynamic properties of the individual glass pieces. Most likely those properties are so small that the effects are too small to notice.

That sounds like someone that knows nothing of physics trying to bluff their way through a physics problem. Have you met humber?

Though the wind drag^WP on the individual particles may be small, the particles are similarly small so they still notice.

Yes, the impact with the shutter most definitely deflects the rock from it's initial flight path.

Unfortunately (for Amanda supporters) rocks are not rubber balls, and don't act like them either. That means that unless you have a shallow angle (like you have if you skip a pebble over water) the rock transfers most of its energy on impact. It does this till the inside shutter has moved to such a extend that a shallow angle between rock and the shutter has been reached. Or till the rock runs out of energy to transfer.

Actually, rocks act very much like rubber balls and deflect quite predictably when striking other objects. Just ask a billiards player or curler.


The force acting on the rock when it strikes the shutter can be thought of as 2 components, the normal force acting through the center of mass of the rock which will affect the trajectory of the rock and the tangential force perpendicular to the normal force which only changes the rotation of the rock. When the shutter is closed, the normal force is pushing in a direction out the window and acting only to slow the rock down. As the shutter opens, the normal force remains perpendicular to the plane of the shutter and so acts more to deflect the rock to the left towards the desk and chair. The magnitude of this force depends on the resistance encountered moving the shutter of which the primary components will be the inertial mass of the shutter and the wind drag acting on the shutter.


All we need to simulate this interaction is the mass of the rock and the size and mass of the shutter. Simulations can then be run to find how far the rock is deflected for different initial conditions of velocity and impact point.

There will also be a spring component where energy is stored in the deformation of the shutter and released at a later point as the force acting to deform the shutter subsides. This can be added later to refine the model as can simulating different shapes for the rock..

 

[Dan O.]

Here's what Raffaele said about the knife:

Trans: Thoughtful

Date: November 17, 2007
... His own two pocket knives have also been confiscated;

Just thought I would remind everyone of an earlier exchange only a few days ago...

No evidence of Meredith was found on either pocket knife.

'Either' pocket knife? I just told you, they don't have both pocket knives...one's missing.

 

[stilicho]

The loads of DNA cases that you are referring to generally came from Evidence that was properly collected and stored.

By the way, I didn't realize that my number of people was going to be taken so seriously.

Is this one of those joke posts you're referring to?

Which parts of your web site are intended as jokes?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

That sounds like someone that knows nothing of physics trying to bluff their way through a physics problem. Have you met humber?

Though the wind drag^WP on the individual particles may be small, the particles are similarly small so they still notice.



Actually, rocks act very much like rubber balls and deflect quite predictably when striking other objects. Just ask a billiards player or curler.


The force acting on the rock when it strikes the shutter can be thought of as 2 components, the normal force acting through the center of mass of the rock which will affect the trajectory of the rock and the tangential force perpendicular to the normal force which only changes the rotation of the rock. When the shutter is closed, the normal force is pushing in a direction out the window and acting only to slow the rock down. As the shutter opens, the normal force remains perpendicular to the plane of the shutter and so acts more to deflect the rock to the left towards the desk and chair. The magnitude of this force depends on the resistance encountered moving the shutter of which the primary components will be the inertial mass of the shutter and the wind drag acting on the shutter.


All we need to simulate this interaction is the mass of the rock and the size and mass of the shutter. Simulations can then be run to find how far the rock is deflected for different initial conditions of velocity and impact point.

There will also be a spring component where energy is stored in the deformation of the shutter and released at a later point as the force acting to deform the shutter subsides. This can be added later to refine the model as can simulating different shapes for the rock..

Well, go for it.

We're waiting for the results of your proper study.

I think you'll find you're mistaken on your knowledge of physics.

 

[tsig]

The loads of DNA cases that you are referring to generally came from Evidence that was properly collected and stored.

By the way, I didn't realize that my number of people was going to be taken so seriously.

If you don't want to be taken seriously you're going about it in the right way.

 

[Amazer]

That sounds like someone that knows nothing of physics trying to bluff their way through a physics problem. Have you met humber?

Though the wind drag^WP on the individual particles may be small, the particles are similarly small so they still notice.

I didn't say that it wouldn't have any effect. I said that the effects would be so small that they would be barely noticeable. Besides, it's your claim that the sudden rush of air would cause the glass to fly further. How about you do some calculations yourself. Or find relevant studies that support your claim. I'll wait patiently.

Actually, rocks act very much like rubber balls and deflect quite predictably when striking other objects. Just ask a billiards player or curler.

That still doesn't make a rock a rubber ball and that was the point. The degree to which they store and release energy is pretty different. This has rather profound impact at how well they deflect from a given surface (in this case wood).

The force acting on the rock when it strikes the shutter can be thought of as 2 components, the normal force acting through the center of mass of the rock which will affect the trajectory of the rock and the tangential force perpendicular to the normal force which only changes the rotation of the rock. When the shutter is closed, the normal force is pushing in a direction out the window and acting only to slow the rock down. As the shutter opens, the normal force remains perpendicular to the plane of the shutter and so acts more to deflect the rock to the left towards the desk and chair. The magnitude of this force depends on the resistance encountered moving the shutter of which the primary components will be the inertial mass of the shutter and the wind drag acting on the shutter.

You're more or less on target here. I would add resistance from the hinges. If they're well oiled/lubricated and clean, the shutters will turn a lot easer then if there's all kinds of debris/dust in the hinges. This will probably be much more important factor then wind resistance of the shutter IMO.

All we need to simulate this interaction is the mass of the rock and the size and mass of the shutter. Simulations can then be run to find how far the rock is deflected for different initial conditions of velocity and impact point.

Be my guest. Go simulate and let us know your methodology and results.

My guess, based on over a decade of experience with stone, is that you will not like the results.

There will also be a spring component where energy is stored in the deformation of the shutter and released at a later point as the force acting to deform the shutter subsides. This can be added later to refine the model as can simulating different shapes for the rock..

Don't let me stop you. However the shape of the rock is should be pretty clear. You really wouldn't have to simulate a lot of different shapes.

 

[shuttlt]

That post shows you have a serious case of temporal incognizance. You see a picture of glass on the sill and assume that the glass was always there and any forces acting on the glass would necessarily have acted while the glass was on the sill.

No. This is not what I think. The only force I was talking about was the air being dragged into the room. I was illustrating that there isn't that much of a gust of wind. In fact, thinking about it, won't their be air rushing through the broken window from inside the room pushing glass towards the window sill?

 

[Matthew Best]

Still here debating on this issue??
Can not believe it!!

Added: 202 pages! Wow!

Yep - I guess that indicates there is a reasonable doubt!

 

[Kermit]

I think that Kermit and others were misinterpreting the paper that I cited, and for the same reason that they misunderstood the paper on DNA and fingerprints I cited.

.
Halides, could you be more specific and describe where and what we misunderstood in your links? I don't think that anyone here knows what you're referring to.

1) You had suggested that the transfer mechanism of Raffaele's DNA profile to the bra clasp could be through either household dust, or through manual contamination (pe. investigators' gloves) after touching Raffeale's fingerprints on the outside of Meredith's door.

2) You provided 2 links which you had identified in order to support these suggestions

3) Upon reading these links, we your fellow posters saw that far from supporting your possible means of DNA transfer, the papers in question described just the opposite. The techniques in question are not fully mature as practical, wide-spread forensic procedures, the DNA identified is partial and much weaker than Raffaele's profile on the clasp, etc.

So, please be more specific, rather than just saying ... "ah you guys just don't understand".

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Yep - I guess that indicates there is a reasonable doubt!

lol


Just because it's being discussed does not mean the objections to the evidence/convictions are reasonable.

 

[Fiona]

By the way, I didn't realize that my number of people was going to be taken so seriously.

Interesting. If you did not mean it seriously then I wonder what was the point of including it? It seems to me that this was an attempt to imply that you had the weight of informed opinion behind you: and thus that those who do not accept your position are in some sense a small and ill-informed group who can be dismissed for that reason. By including numbers you gave that insinuation more weight. or rather you tried to. The inclusion of numbers is often used in that way and it is an unfortunate side effect of the respect we afford to science and mathematics that this sometimes works: hence the common joke "85% of statistics are made up".

Remove those numbers and the content and force of your statement is much plainer: "all the cool kids agree with me" Somehow that is a lot less persuasive

 

[Kermit]

I am just curious, my photos are talked about with great detail but Kermit put a badly photo shopped picture on here that is a complete joke that simply tries to distort the truth.

.
I didn't use photoshop in any way. The use of Photoshop (or a similar image manipulation program) is associated with an attempt to stretch or distort the truth, as FOA has done on their website where they shrink Rudy's footprint to an unnaturally tiny 23 cm, in order to insinuate that he is the owner of the bathmat print.

You may notice that my post included three images, one on top of the other.

The first image I hope you have no problem with, as it is Francesco Vinci's fifth bloody stain on the pillow. I limited myself to simply reproducing it, no photoshopping or modification. (I did turn it 90º to the right, I thought that Dan O would like that ...).

You shouldn't have any problem with the second image either, as it is really just repeating Francesco Vinci's overlay on a complete Nike Outbreak sole, instead of just the heel. I used the exact same angular bloody stain cut-out as he used, no photoshopping. The proof is that my results are the same as his in the first image.

I honestly don't think that you should have any problem with the third image either. Here, I again use Vinci's angular bloody stain cut-out, but this time I place it over Raffaele's Nike Air Force 1 sole. No photoshopping stretching or changing of proportions. (I used powerpoint to place the Vinci stain over Raffaele's shoe).

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

So why do you call my images a "joke"? The first two you should be in 100% agreement with. The last one you may not agree with, but it justifies a calm discussion about how very partial angular blood stains may be applicable to different objects.

My objective was to show that "perfect match" number 5 could also be as much of a match for other objects associated with all of the three suspects (now convicts, pending appeal). Personally I think I achieved that objective.

You call it a joke, which is fine on an Internet discussion board. However, where this all counts is in the courtrooms of Italy, where the judges evaluate and weigh the significance of all evidence.

(CLICK below to see a full-sized image)

 

[Dan O.]

I didn't say that it wouldn't have any effect. I said that the effects would be so small that they would be barely noticeable. Besides, it's your claim that the sudden rush of air would cause the glass to fly further. How about you do some calculations yourself. Or find relevant studies that support your claim. I'll wait patiently.

You've given no indication that you would accept the results of my calculations.

 

[Fiona]

You've given no indication that you would accept the results of my calculations.

What difference does that make? It is par for the course in this thread and in any case if you are right that will be there for the uncommitted. As it stands you are asking for a blank cheque, I think