Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
shuttlt said:
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?
Click to expand...


What's the force causing such a rush?
 
Fiona said:
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
Click to expand...


You can choose to remain deliberately ignorant or you can learn to do the math and find your own answers. I've seen the results of debating science with the ignorant. Unless someone shows that they have the capacity and inclination to verify the results, I'm not going to bother.
 
Dan O. said:
I've seen the results of debating science with the ignorant. Unless someone shows that they have the capacity and inclination to verify the results, I'm not going to bother.
Click to expand...
.
We're ready and willing to verify the results of your several page debating issue of turning slide 17 to the left and slide 66 to the right.

Or is it that we have already seen the results of debating with the ignorant, to use your words?
 
Dan O. said:
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 dragWP 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..
Click to expand...

I would not be in such a rush to diss this theory. There would be a vacuum effect caused to some extent by the window being knocked open by a large rock, in my opinion. However there are many other factors involved. You would also have to factor in the compressed air effect of the air between the interior shutter and the window. As the rock hits the window the glass is caved in (I wish we had a super slow motion video) somewhat before it shatters. The air trapped between the glass and the interior shutter is compressed resulting in even more glass going in the opposite direction of the blow than the normal backwards projection of the glass. The initial backwards projection is caused by the elasticity of the glass, almost a trampoline effect. As the glass caves in some of it does not snap off but springs back and then snaps because of the crack on the backside(opposite the blow) that forms when the glass caves inward but does not initially break.

If the shutters are at the same time moving open some of the backward projected glass could actually end up in the room at a severe angle and distance from the initial contact. It is not uncommon to see the backward projected glass go further from the strike than the glass that follows the object through, especially with a relative slow moving object such as a large rock. A bullet would be much different.

The defense expert at trial presented 3 videos of which I have seen a portion of only one, and it starts after the shutter is already open and you can see the rock (a second or two after contact). If anyone has the complete video I would love to see it. I have seen reported that one of the three cameras used was from the outside perspective. I am especially interested in that one.
 
RoseMontague said:
The defense expert at trial presented 3 videos of which I have seen a portion of only one, and it starts after the shutter is already open and you can see the rock (a second or two after contact). If anyone has the complete video I would love to see it. I have seen reported that one of the three cameras used was from the outside perspective. I am especially interested in that one.
Click to expand...


http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=7995762
Francesco Pasquali, a retired forensic police officer hired as a consultant by Sollecito's defense, presented a video in court that included three different scenarios showing how the rock could have been thrown from the outside to break the window, located 13 feet off the ground.

Two video cameras -- one inside and one outside -- filmed the rock being thrown through the glass.​


There should be 6 videos segments from the 3 experiments.
 
Dan O. said:
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=7995762
Click to expand...

One witness said his office window had been broken with a large rock, and a computer stolen. The computer and a cell phone were later found in the possession of Guede, who was also found with a switchblade. ​

It was awfully clever of Knox and Sollecito to stage the break-in in just such a way as would tend to incriminate Guede. Perhaps he inadvertangly suggested it to them as he hurriedly left the scene.
 
Dan O. said:
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=7995762
Francesco Pasquali, a retired forensic police officer hired as a consultant by Sollecito's defense, presented a video in court that included three different scenarios showing how the rock could have been thrown from the outside to break the window, located 13 feet off the ground.

Two video cameras -- one inside and one outside -- filmed the rock being thrown through the glass.​


There should be 6 videos segments from the 3 experiments.
Click to expand...

Thanks Dan for the clarification, 3 experiments and 2 cameras whereas I thought I had read 3 cameras. Still, I believe the outside camera view is more of a key to the mystery than the interior one.
 
Fiona said:
How strong a wind are we talking about here? :confused:
Click to expand...

Dan O. said:
It will be several times the velocity that the rock had once it had entered the room. The mechanical leverage of pushing on the shutter near the hinge provides the first multiplier. The bellows effect of the large shutter area drawing air through the smaller opening provides another multiplier. The initial velocity of the rock will also be much higher before it hits the shutter than after.

It should be possible to compute the possible trajectories that would get the glass fragments to the rug in front of the bed. That would give an estimate on how much acceleration would have been required.
Click to expand...

Fulcanelli said:
What are you waiting for then? Go and compute Dr Dan_O. Make sure you tell us your results.
Click to expand...

Dan O. said:
What's the force causing such a rush?
Click to expand...


I too would like to see you explain that in more depth, Dan O.

Earlier you postulated a velocity of 1 m/s imparted to the shutter by the rock at the point of impact. Assuming (not a valid assumption) a perfectly equivalent velocity imparted to the surrounding air as a result of that motion you would have a breeze of approx. 2 knots.

Imagine a beach with a 2 knot breeze. This isn't enough to ruffle a newspaper. You might not even sense it on wet skin. It wouldn't blow your hair around.

Pick up a handful of sand and cast it upwards in that 2 knot breeze. How far do you imagine it will travel horizontally? (Note that sand is a remarkably accurate analog for fine glass fragments.) Now imagine the same experiment in that same light breeze with crushed shells or small gravel (larger pieces of glass?). Do they travel farther? Less far? The same distance as the sand?

How much "force" are you suggesting affected the window glass fragments by "such a rush"?
 
Matthew Best said:
One witness said his office window had been broken with a large rock, and a computer stolen. The computer and a cell phone were later found in the possession of Guede, who was also found with a switchblade. ​

It was awfully clever of Knox and Sollecito to stage the break-in in just such a way as would tend to incriminate Guede. Perhaps he inadvertangly suggested it to them as he hurriedly left the scene.
Click to expand...

I'm wondering what this 'in just such a way' was...as opposed to? You write this in a way in which it seems you are suggesting that there were many other ways they could have simulated a burglary that would not incriminate Rudy. What might those be? All that was required for Rudy to be incriminated was a) the mess he created (footprints, poo in the loo...so really, he'd all ready done all the work on that matter for them) to be left behind and b) break a window and toss a room to make it appear that someone who did not live in the cottage committed the crime.

If there was a really 'clever' part (I think you're implying it required 'genius'), perhaps you could point it out for us?
 
Last edited:
Dan O. said:
Just thought I would remind everyone of an earlier exchange only a few days ago...
Click to expand...

Only Massei doesn't seem to agree. It may or may not be that two knives were confiscated, but Massei in his report speaks directly in his report of another knife Raffaele owned that was seen by witnesses but was not in the possession of the ILE. It is this knife he assigns to have inflicted the 4 cm deep wound.
 
Fulcanelli said:
What dishwasher?
Click to expand...

Bruce has a photo on his website of the cabinet underneath Rafaelle's sink. It shows an open box of dishwasher powder (I forget the name, it's not sold in the U.S.). His claim is that this particular dishwasher powder contains bleach, therefore all of Rafaelle's utentils would have traces of bleach on them, not just the big knife.

My problem with this theory is:

1. No evidence that Rafaelle ever used the dishwasher. He was handwashing dishes the night before murder. I've lived in the same apartment for almost three years and have never used the dishwasher. Why? There is three of us in our household who eat at different times so there is never enough dishes at one time to justify using it.

2. Rafaelle stated that the big knife was already in the apartment when he rented it. No reason to believe that the dishwashing powder wasn't there as well when he moved in.

Update: It's called Dixan detergent.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps a European poster can clarify this, but from what I can figure out, Dixan detergent is for washing machine use, not dishwasher use.
 
I believe it is also laundry detergent. On the box are the words "campeon contra las manchas" which translated means something like "champion against stains."

I haven't enough posts to attach an image but one can google "Dixan detergent" for one.

ETA: The box in Fisher's photo resembles the image of the Dixan detergent I googled.
 
Last edited:
christianahannah said:
The box in Fisher's photo resembles the image of the Dixan detergent I googled.
Click to expand...

Indeed it does. Maybe Bruce can explain this quote from his website in regard to the photo of the Dixan detergent:

The photo to the right shows a box of detergent located under Raffaele's sink. Dixan detergent is manufactured by Henkel. This brand of detergent contains bleach. Everything that was washed in Raffaele's dishwasher would show traces of bleach.
Click to expand...
 
christianahannah said:
I believe it is also laundry detergent. On the box are the words "campeon contra las manchas" which translated means something like "champion against stains."

I haven't enough posts to attach an image but one can google "Dixan detergent" for one.

ETA: The box in Fisher's photo resembles the image of the Dixan detergent I googled.
Click to expand...

Is that half of the same photo they staged to show the missing trap on the pipe under the sink?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom