Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fulcanelli]

​

Are you insinuating that there was no stick in that forest. It's quite likely if the stick was used to open the shutter that it was put back where it was found since at the same location there are a number of decent size rocks that don't even require digging out of the soil.

The forest is the forest (and it isn't even a forest). We aren't talking about the forest, we're talking about the cottage. There was no stick or similar implement at the cottage.

 

[Fulcanelli]

​

Nobody was claiming that a stick was used to open the shutters. But Fulcanelli replied with a definite claim: "no such tool of any kind was found at the crime scene". Seeing that there was indeed a sufficiently long stick there at the crime scene at the time and in plain sight, was Fulcanelli lying about what Massei said? (The google translation of page 36 mentions "The non-discovery of suitable means to achieve such opening" which could mean that the specific tool was not identified not that no tool was present). Or is Massei lying about what the prosecutor said? Or did the prosecutor lie about what the inspector reported? Or did the inspector fabricate a story about searching for sticks because that was what he was supposed to be doing. All we know is that someone in this chain is lying.

Skeptics may want to investigate this further. Guilters will want to dismiss it because no result that it leads to can support their cause.

Perhaps you should refrain from the Google translations and wait for Report you can actually understand. Massei makes it very clear, there was no implement left at the scene that he could see as being used to open those shutters and that indeed, none was used.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Skeptics may want to investigate this further. Guilters will want to dismiss it because no result that it leads to can support their cause.

Would those be the guilters that believe Rudy Guede committed the murder, or would those be the guilters who believe all three committed the murder?

 

[Fulcanelli]

They seized the knife, had it tested, and once the "too low, too low, too low" technicalities were brushed aside, it was scientifically proven to be the (second) murder weapon, the one Amanda Knox wielded while saying, "now you'll be forced to have sex, you prissy girl!"

All 'Too Low' means is that the sample amounted to being from 0 - 10 cells. Any sample below 10 cells reads as two low and that's why it did so in this case. I don't see this as a problem, since scientists can extract a profile from a single cell.

 

[Fulcanelli]

And then, when the ghastly deed was done, she hopped backward into the hallway, leaving a single bare footprint, which was later detected with luminol.

I see no small amount of hypocrisy here Wilkes, for you were only too happy to claim Rudy hopped to the bathroom. Only boys hop, is that it Wilkes?

And let's face it, Amanda does have form doesn't she...who could ever forget the bath mat boogie? What's a bit of mere hopping after that?

 

[Fulcanelli]

It's interesting how Mignini finds himself in charge of such far-out cases, with backward hopping barefoot murderesses, double-body-swapping Satan worshippers, the sort of stuff that appears nowhere else in the annals of crime.

This was never Mignini's theory. Why are you making-up (or repeating someone else's...and we all know whose) complete drivel?

 

[Dan O.]

Perhaps you should refrain from the Google translations and wait for Report you can actually understand. Massei makes it very clear, there was no implement left at the scene that he could see as being used to open those shutters and that indeed, none was used.

... and he looked at the twelve 8x10 color glossy photos with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one ... and he looked at the seeing eye dog.​

This is a typical case of Italian Blind Justice.

 

[Dan O.]

Hmmm. I wonder why the burglar would put the stick back where he found it? It is not like he can hope that nobody will notice there has been a burglarly, what with the broken window and all. And it was really remiss of him not to put the rock back where he found it too, if he went to all that trouble with the stick.

Seems to me he was a really annoying burglar, more intent on confusing the issue than on burgling the cottage. Which is rather strange for a burglar who is not, at that stage, a murderer. Perhaps he just has a great sense of humour?

Looking at the evidence in front of us and not going into fairy tails about how the evidence could have been faked, there is a shutter to be opened if it wasn't open already. In the case of the shutter being closed, the burglar could climb up to the window and open the shutter or fetch a handy long stick to open it from the ground. In the case where the burglar chooses to us the stick, the stick can either be left on the ground, tossed away like a javelin or put somewhere where it would not look out of place. Since we haven't heard any stories of blind inspectors tripping over a carelessly dropped stick we can presume that the stick was either tossed away or put back where it wouldn't be noticed as out of the ordinary (and apparently not noticed at all). The case of putting the stick back where it came from just happens to be on the way to where there are a number of suitable rocks for tossing through the window so it would not be out of the way and would be the logical place to leave the stick so as not to have to carry both stick and rock at the same time.

 

[quadraginta]

Looking at the evidence in front of us and not going into fairy tails about how the evidence could have been faked, there is a shutter to be opened if it wasn't open already. In the case of the shutter being closed, the burglar could climb up to the window and open the shutter or fetch a handy long stick to open it from the ground. In the case where the burglar chooses to us the stick, the stick can either be left on the ground, tossed away like a javelin or put somewhere where it would not look out of place. Since we haven't heard any stories of blind inspectors tripping over a carelessly dropped stick we can presume that the stick was either tossed away or put back where it wouldn't be noticed as out of the ordinary (and apparently not noticed at all). The case of putting the stick back where it came from just happens to be on the way to where there are a number of suitable rocks for tossing through the window so it would not be out of the way and would be the logical place to leave the stick so as not to have to carry both stick and rock at the same time.

Why would someone who is about to throw a rock through a window care if a stick they used to make it possible looked "out of place"? Did they think that perhaps no one would notice the window?

Why would someone who has been hunting for a stick to open a shutter so that they could throw a rock through a window not take the rock with them when they went to open the shutter?

Why would he be inconvenienced by carrying both a stick and a rock? He's about to scale a two story vertical surface and hold himself up by the fingertips of one hand while he reaches through broken glass without injury to unlock a window. He's in a hurry, because he doesn't want to be caught. Do you think that carrying two things at once would be a problem for him?

Your desperation is showing.

 

[Moss]

Why use the stick to open the shutter but not to smash the window?

 

[Fulcanelli]

I'm also wondering how Rudy's supposed to see in the 'forest' in the pitch dark to find said stick.

 

[shuttlt]

I'm also wondering how Rudy's supposed to see in the 'forest' in the pitch dark to find said stick.

Amanda let him in so he could borrow her lamp.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Amanda let him in so he could borrow her lamp.

And then he used his knife to hack the little branches off of his stick to form a tool.

 

[Moss]

I'm also wondering how Rudy's supposed to see in the 'forest' in the pitch dark to find said stick.

Depends on your definition of pitch dark. In most places outside you are able to see enough after a while in the dark. Unless there are further circumstances that impair vision like rain, fog or bad night vision.
(I can say that rather firmly after having taken a stroll or twelve around dark woods at night around here.)

 

[Dan O.]

Why use the stick to open the shutter but not to smash the window?

That's a valid question but doesn't explain where the lie about there being no sticks comes from.

The facts suggest that a rock was used to break the window. postulating that the stick was used to break the window leaves the existence of the rock in the room to be explained.

The burglar has two choices, sneak in quietly, pilfer what he can and sneak out without alerting the residents; or insure first that there are no residents present before committing to enter. The necessity to break the window precludes the first option and it may be felt that the stick wouldn't make enough noise to identify if the residence were occupied. There is also the issue of the inner shade and the uncertainty of what force will be necessary to open it.

 

[Amazer]

Why use the stick to open the shutter but not to smash the window?

Why indeed... but i'm fairly sure that Dan O. will come up with an ever so interesting theory.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Depends on your definition of pitch dark. In most places outside you are able to see enough after a while in the dark. Unless there are further circumstances that impair vision like rain, fog or bad night vision.
(I can say that rather firmly after having taken a stroll or twelve around dark woods at night around here.)

It was an overcast and moonless night that night.

 

[shuttlt]

It was an overcast and moonless night that night.

It was a dark and stormy night, and the prisoners were in their cells, when one said to her cellmate, 'Amanda, tell us a story', and this is what she said. 'It was a dark and stormy night…'"

 

[Fulcanelli]

That's a valid question but doesn't explain where the lie about there being no sticks comes from.

You're quite fast and loose with that word 'lie' Dan O, especially when you don't actually evidence something to not be true...for example, a photo of nearby where there are sticks lying around. In any case, if you actually look behind the cottage it isn't forest at all...it's scrubland.

The necessity to break the window precludes the first option and it may be felt that the stick wouldn't make enough noise to identify if the residence were occupied.

Oh no, not this nonsense about having to break a window to see if anyone's home. People knock on doors for that Dan O.

=There is also the issue of the inner shade and the uncertainty of what force will be necessary to open it.

Why not just go in through the kitchen window where there is no mountaineering or shades/shutters to worry about at all...you know, that less exposed easy access window that a 'real' burglar would enter, that kitchen window which was indeed used both times the cottage was broken into after the trial had started?

There is no logic to any of your arguments at all.

 

[Amazer]

That's a valid question but doesn't explain where the lie about there being no sticks comes from.

Unless you consider this 'forest' to be part of the crime scene... there wasn't a lie.

The facts suggest that a rock was used to break the window. postulating that the stick was used to break the window leaves the existence of the rock in the room to be explained.

The absence of a stick near the window suggest that no stick was used.

The burglar has two choices, sneak in quietly, pilfer what he can and sneak out without alerting the residents; or insure first that there are no residents present before committing to enter. The necessity to break the window precludes the first option and it may be felt that the stick wouldn't make enough noise to identify if the residence were occupied. There is also the issue of the inner shade and the uncertainty of what force will be necessary to open it.

I'm fairly certain that the sound of breaking glass would have made it abundantly clear to any residents who were present in the house that something was up. Stick or rock makes little difference.