Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RWVBWL]

Secondly, while it may true to say that Amanda, Rudy and Raffaele lost, it would be false to claim anyone 'won'.

Greetings Fulcanelli,
The other day, we debated whether Mr. Mignini, had indeed "won" another conviction when Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox where found guilty during round 1 of their trials.

Today, I was reading a story from 1 of your UK newspapers,
"The Independant",
wherein the writer, Peter Popham wrote of this:

"One of Italy's most rambunctious legal performers, the scourge of Amanda Knox, was back in action last week.
Plump, pompous and perspiring, Giuliano Mignini, 60, may look like a character out of Dickens, but in persuading a Perugia jury to convict Knox and her Italian boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito of murdering Knox's English flatmate Meredith Kercher, the public prosecutor for the city of Perugia earned himself a reputation for steely ruthlessness in nailing his enemies". (bolding mine).

A link is here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/knox-prosecutor-tainted-by-satanism-case-1992485.html

To me, that sounds like another way to call a WIN a WIN!
But then again, I'm just a surfer who graduated from high school only a long time ago, albeit 1 who has alotta "street smarts", that didn't go to college as many of the other fine poster's here on JREF probably did.
So what would I know about a "WIN", or even the true meaning of calling Amanda Knox,
1 of a trio of convicted killers of Meredith Kercher,
a "criminal mastermind", after all that I have read of this murder case?
Maybe I should have rephrased that, for she usually seems to be the portrayed as the "ringleader" or maybe "THE criminal mastermind" of this trio of convicted murderers.
Heck, I'm a simple kinda guy, so if it's cool,
I too would rather use the word "slander" instead of "Calumny", if that's OK...

Have a good one,
RWVBWL

 

[RWVBWL]

A little off the topic at hand, but there was an interesting article posted by 'Michael' over at PMF recently, about Luciano Aviello's claims his brother killed Meredith. I'm less interested in that since it sounds like a load of garbage, though I've posted the whole thing here anyway. But there was a detail in the article that confirms something that's been discussed before on the thread: the cottage front door needed to be locked and unlocked with a key, even from inside. Therefore if Rudy acted alone, or with anyone other than a resident, he would have needed to take Meredith's keys in order to unlock the front door and get out of the house. I would argue this in itself makes his motive for taking Meredith's keys far stronger than any motive Knox and Sollecito may have had. Taking Meredith's keys wouldn't just have been a random choice for him; it would have been absolutely necessary. The Italian article:



And a rough translation of the above. Not sure what an 'associate justice' is, unless it's politically correct speak for 'jail bird'.

Hi katy did and Bob001,
I enjoy reading, and so I saw this posted today in the forum over on InjusticeinPerugia.com
I hope Bruce Fisher doesn't get mad at me for cross-posting it!
__________________________________________________________________________
"Kevad said...
Anonymous said...
By the way the young man in the movie was guilty

So is Amanda.

WRONG! Next! There are details coming out that will end up setting Amanda & RS FREE! Today is a good "key" day " (bolding mine)
__________________________________________________________________________

So I wonder what the heck "Kevad" is writing about?
Hmmm, "keys" maybe?
RWVBWL

 

[stilicho]

So what would I know about a "WIN", or even the true meaning of calling Amanda Knox, 1 of a trio of convicted killers of Meredith Kercher, a "criminal mastermind", after all that I have read of this murder case?
Maybe I should have rephrased that, for she usually seems to be the portrayed as the "ringleader" or maybe "THE criminal mastermind" of this trio of convicted murderers.

RWVBWL

Most of us would simply call Knox a "catalyst" rather than "ringleader" or "criminal mastermind". Even that designation might be too strongly suggestive. They didn't even try to dispose of the body and tried to talk their way out of it for four days before the contradictions and the evidence caught up with them.

Most criminal masterminds don't resort to the "too high to remember" defence.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

It looks like it's a cudgel used to properly punish those who got off lightly during sentencing. As for "archaic", one could argue that laws and constitutional rights are "archaic" by definition since they are normally amended or clarified through precedence. Maybe the Knox case will be that precedent. Who knows?

I think that, if the verdict is guilty and an extra six years are tacked on to her jail time, there will be enormous relief in Italy that they have that kind of law to help protect the public. On the flip side, working through political channels, urging reform of such "archaic" laws might give the FOA something constructive to do for the next decade or so while they await Knox' release from jail.

You honestly think Italians will look at this slander charge as a protection for their well being? Really?

 

[quadraginta]

I think most reasonable people would agree that this judge was way out of line, especially since he was apparently writing letters on his official stationary. And I doubt that Italian judges would have looked kindly on such letters, any more than an American judge would want to hear from judges in Italy. He deserves to be sanctioned.

But the story does raise an interesting question. Apparently the judge urged a change of venue for the Knox trial. That seems like something that should have been considered, and is fairly routine for controversial trials in the U.S. If the Knox trial had been held in another city, with judges and jurors who had no connection to the Perugia prosecutor and who hadn't been horrified by a terrible crime in their own town, some of us who think Knox was railroaded might have more confidence in the validity of a guilty verdict. How hard is it to get a change of venue in Italian courts?

How hard is it to get a change of venue that does any good when the media coverage is national and international? After all, the entire country is about the size of one of our larger states. How far away would they need to go to actually do any good? How far could they go?

I suspect that changes of venue in the U.S., which aren't exactly all that "routine", are motivated more by heading off appeals based on Sheppard v. Maxwell type claims than on any real expectation that it will make a significant difference.

I think that in cases with as high a media profile as this one it's sort of silly, if not futile to search out jurors who have limited knowledge of the case. It's more important to try to select ones who are not already predisposed towards a decision and can provide an impartial verdict based on the facts of the case as presented in the court.

To some degree I think I would rather not have someone who is so mulishly self-isolated from awareness of current events as to be unexposed to the media to that extent. That sort of apathy doesn't necessarily speak well of their interest in informed analysis.

 

[quadraginta]

Secondly, while it may true to say that Amanda, Rudy and Raffaele lost, it would be false to claim anyone 'won'.

Greetings Fulcanelli,
The other day, we debated whether Mr. Mignini, had indeed "won" another conviction when Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox where found guilty during round 1 of their trials.

Today, I was reading a story from 1 of your UK newspapers,
"The Independant",
wherein the writer, Peter Popham wrote of this:

"One of Italy's most rambunctious legal performers, the scourge of Amanda Knox, was back in action last week.
Plump, pompous and perspiring, Giuliano Mignini, 60, may look like a character out of Dickens, but in persuading a Perugia jury to convict Knox and her Italian boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito of murdering Knox's English flatmate Meredith Kercher, the public prosecutor for the city of Perugia earned himself a reputation for steely ruthlessness in nailing his enemies". (bolding mine).

A link is here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/knox-prosecutor-tainted-by-satanism-case-1992485.html

To me, that sounds like another way to call a WIN a WIN!

<snip>

Stop the presses! A public prosecutor is getting a reputation for being 'tough on crime'!

In some other country's newspaper, no less.

It sure is a good thing we don't suffer from such archaic practices here. I suppose it could be worse. They could be elected to office.

Oh, ... wait.

 

[Mary_H]

Well, well, well, what have we here? Judge Massei confirming the police knew by November 10th that Amanda regretted her accusation of Patrick? No wonder the guilters on this thread have quietly ceased blaming Amanda for Patrick's extended prison stay.

I will be sure to carry this quote with me into the other blogs, where that accusation is still being made.

Originally Posted by Massei
Amanda Knox is also found guilty of the crime of libel towards the same [Patrick Lumumba].

The accusation of Patrick Lumumba of having committed murder and violence to the detriment of Meredith was peacefully [voluntarily?] made by Amanda Knox between 5 and 6 November 2007. With regard to this accusation, Amanda's early conversations with her mother and the regret expressed (see intercepted conversation of 10 November) constitutes confirmation of the accusation and the knowledge of its injustice. Knowledge that, however, derives from what has already been stated about Amanda's responsibility for the crime of murder and violence to the detriment of Meredith.

 

[Mary_H]

I'll tell you what I think is happening, HB. I have no cites but it makes a lot of sense in light of the case developments (insofar as we can believe most of what the media tells us).

The calumny charge is a bit of flexing in anticipation of the appeal and is fully within the scope of Italian law that requires the prosecution pursue it. I would guess that the requirement is sometimes pursued less vigorously and certainly less publicly.

The prosecution has to be disappointed that they didn't get a life sentence for all three murderers. This charge enables them to try to tack on the years of prison time justified by the vicious and callous nature of the crime.

Law enforcement tries things like this wherever possible and it's not confined to Italy or other 'third world' countries. The Treasury Department and the ATF are sometimes deployed in the US to get at infamous criminals they're unable to prosecute by other means. There's nothing barbaric or unique in what the Italians are doing.

I think you could be right, stilicho.

 

[Mary_H]

No, but there is a law against telling lies about others in regard to a crime.

Don't you think she would have dressed it up a bit if she were lying? Not to mention the fact that she first brought it up within four hours of the occurrence.

katy_did has effectively explained what is wrong with relying on the "word" of the police. If the police couldn't be bothered to tape the interrogation, they shouldn't be allowed to defend it.

 

[Mary_H]

I believe that it's points like these that would require one to consider Amanda Knox as a cunning, clever and manipulative operator - if she was involved in the murder. Perhaps the term "criminal mastermind" might be overdoing it a bit, but I don't think it's all that far wide of the mark...

I agree. That Amanda and Raffaele "knew exactly what they were doing" has been claimed many, many times by many, many people (not necessarily in this thread). It's a fall-back position for some when they can't answer a question logically.

Don't forget the knife, John. Unlike millions of criminals before them, Amanda and Raffaele did not dispose of the murder weapon, but instead took it home and prepared meals with it for days -- just to see if they could get away with it.

 

[RWVBWL]

Most of us would simply call Knox a "catalyst" rather than "ringleader" or "criminal mastermind". Even that designation might be too strongly suggestive. They didn't even try to dispose of the body and tried to talk their way out of it for four days before the contradictions and the evidence caught up with them.

Most criminal masterminds don't resort to the "too high to remember" defence.

Greetings stilicho,
Thanks for correction, I'll try to use it soon, with you in mind!
Being a surfer, I had always thought that "catalyst" was just the nickname for Methyl Ketone Peroxide, which is what is added and mixed in with Polyester Resin when laminating fiberglass to make surfboards.
Cool, learned something new today on JREF...
Have a good one up North,
RWVBWL

 

[Bob001]

How hard is it to get a change of venue that does any good when the media coverage is national and international? After all, the entire country is about the size of one of our larger states. How far away would they need to go to actually do any good?

I'm sure you're right that finding people who hadn't heard about the case would be a hopeless cause, unless maybe you rousted the poor souls who live in cardboard boxes under bridges. But one allegation in the Knox case is that the judges were acquainted with, if not actually friends of, the prosecutor, and the lay jurors apparently were selected at random without questioning by either side, which means that you could have had jurors who may have walked down the street where the crime occurred, looked at the house, known the police officers, formed an opinion from debates with their own friends and neighbors, resented obnoxious foreign students, etc. Even if you couldn't eliminate media influence, I think moving to another city would be more likely to get judges and a jury that didn't feel they had some personal stake in the outcome. And maybe a big-city jury (on a map Rome looks like it's about 150 miles away) might be a little more receptive to doubts about government allegations.

 

[RWVBWL]

Holy crap, the knife and keys are either under the wall or they're not. Why wouldn't the cops go look?

Quote:
"Knox, Sollecito and Guede are innocent. He had the keys and the knife"

Rome, June 8 (AP) - In a videotaped interview on March 31 this year, Luciano Aviello, 41, associate justice, told lawyers for Amanda Knox the truth about the murder of Meredith Kercher. He exonerates Rudy Guede (sentenced to 16 years), Raffaele Sollecito (condemned to 25) and Amanda Knox (26) and points the finger at his brother Antonio Aviello. He stated that Antonio killed Mez in Via della Pergola on the night of 1 November 2007. This was revealed by the weekly magazine Oggi, on newsstands tomorrow. "My brother killed Meredith on the evening of 1 November 2007. Amanda, Guede and Raffaele are innocent. I know because my brother confessed the murder to me and brought the knife still covered with blood and a bunch of keys. I've hidden them under a wall behind my house, covering them with earth and lime plaster. If the court in Perugia will decide to listen, they will be able to find the murder weapon and those keys. Aviello, 41, associate justice with a tumultuous past (17 years in prison for Mafia crimes, and others still to be served), wrote three times to the President of the Court of Assizes of Perugia which has never accepted his testimony. . .
__________________________________________________________________________

Hi Bob001,
I have followed with interest a story that I first saw in Perugia Shock awhile back that there might be someone else involved in the murder of Meredith Kercher. Especially if Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox are innocent of this brutal murder.
Allesandra Formica saw someone leaving the area of the murder scene that night, which she stated in court was not Rudy Guede. So I try to keep an eye out for bits of info that might pertain to who it might be that Miss Formica saw that night, if it wasn't Mr. Guede. His accomplice? Or someone else?

And then Mr Alessi and Mr. Aviello came forward, and though imprisoned, have stated that they had information that sheds light on Mr. Sollecito and Miss Knox's innocence. Mr. Aviello has, for over a year, been trying to get the information out in public that he knows something and it looks like this information(?) might see the light of day in the up-coming appeals trials for Raffaele Sollecito and/or Amanda Knox.

Today, while browsing PMF, I saw a link to ABC News, and decided to read it, though I didn't expect to find out anything new. I had read of this already:

"Aviello claims his brother told him that he broke into a house and killed a woman.
Antonio Aviello then asked his brother to hide the bloody knife and the keys to the Perugia apartment where Kercher and Knox lived, he claimed in the deposition.

"I hid everything under a little wall behind my house and covered it with soil and stones. I am happy to stand up in court and confirm all this and wrote to the court several times to tell them, but was never questioned," Luciano Aviello said.

But this I had not read of before:

"The Italian magazine Oggi quoted Luciano Aviello as saying he had his brother move to Perugia because of trouble in their hometown of Secondigliano.

While in Perugia, Antonio Aviello and another man were hired to steal some paintings from a home, but ended up the apartment shared by Knox and Kercher because they were either given a wrong address or bad directions, Luciano Aviello claims according to the magazine.

Kercher allegedly died in a struggle with the two men, the convict said."

Here's the link: http://abcnews.go.com/US/Media/mafia-informer-amanda-knox-guilty-brother-killer/story?id=10865516

If this is true, and these other guys were the killers, Rudy Guede's statements have some truth to them. If he did not kill Miss Kercher though, when did he sexually assaulted Miss Kercher, afterwards? And then went dancing?
Kind of interesting, hmmm?
RWVBWL

 

[Danceme]

Everything you have read about the case that states there were contradictory alibis was written by someone who, like you, believes or wants to perpetuate the myth that Amanda and Raffaele lied. Their alibis matched until they were interrogated.

This is what you keep saying but there is no evidence of it, unless what you're talking about is the big picture changes, such as "I was there and Patrick did it", in which case that is not at all what I'm talking about. I think you have completely misunderstood what I was saying. I was referring to the details of their alibis which were possibly not consistent leading to suspicion, such as the time they ate, what they talked about, whether there was a shower or not, did Amanda go out or not, etc, etc, etc, the small details which they couldn't get straight between them.

A little off the topic at hand, but there was an interesting article posted by 'Michael' over at PMF recently, about Luciano Aviello's claims his brother killed Meredith. I'm less interested in that since it sounds like a load of garbage, though I've posted the whole thing here anyway. But there was a detail in the article that confirms something that's been discussed before on the thread: the cottage front door needed to be locked and unlocked with a key, even from inside. Therefore if Rudy acted alone, or with anyone other than a resident, he would have needed to take Meredith's keys in order to unlock the front door and get out of the house. I would argue this in itself makes his motive for taking Meredith's keys far stronger than any motive Knox and Sollecito may have had. Taking Meredith's keys wouldn't just have been a random choice for him; it would have been absolutely necessary. The Italian article:



And a rough translation of the above. Not sure what an 'associate justice' is, unless it's politically correct speak for 'jail bird'.

I think this is the story where Frank from Perugia Shock said he went to look where Aviello said the keys were and there was nothing there.

"Aviello even drew a map which indicated where the stone with knife and keys were. I went to check, just to be sure. But there was no knife or keys there. Not even a stone."

This was from his post of May 7th, it's not new and the keys have either been found and it wasn't leaked or the story is simply made up. Apparently this guy had a previous story, where he said it was the son of a particular cop who did it but when he found out this cop's son was only two years old he changed it to be his brother.

 

[Fine]

A little off the topic at hand, but there was an interesting article posted by 'Michael' over at PMF recently, about Luciano Aviello's claims his brother killed Meredith. I'm less interested in that since it sounds like a load of garbage, though I've posted the whole thing here anyway. But there was a detail in the article that confirms something that's been discussed before on the thread: the cottage front door needed to be locked and unlocked with a key, even from inside. Therefore if Rudy acted alone, or with anyone other than a resident, he would have needed to take Meredith's keys in order to unlock the front door and get out of the house. I would argue this in itself makes his motive for taking Meredith's keys far stronger than any motive Knox and Sollecito may have had. Taking Meredith's keys wouldn't just have been a random choice for him; it would have been absolutely necessary.

Quoting again from the Oggi Magazine article:

"To enter and exit the house, the keys were necessary: as the latch lock was faulty, to open or close the door it was necessary to turn the key. If the murderers were not Amanda and Raffaele, as Aviello claimed, whoever entered the house on Via della Pergola that evening would have been forced to take the victim's keys in order to escape. Otherwise he would have remained locked inside."

___________________________________________________________



Well, this would be highly relevant information IF TRUE. But I suspect that it is false.

It was the spring-loaded latch mechanism in the door that was faulty, the mechanism that keeps the door securely closed when the lock is not locked. (The lock mechanism proper was NOT faulty!) So to keep the door securely closed it was required to lock the door. Fine. But from the inside---on all front door locks I've seen---no key is required to lock/unlock the door. Instead, for convenience, there is a small lever or knob used to "throw the bolt" into the locked position.

Another reason why no key would be necessary to unlock the door from the inside: FIRE SAFETY. In case of a fire, an occupant would have to find a key to get out, and a child may not even know where a key could be found. So in some jurisdictions, IT WOULD BE ILLEGAL to have installed such a lock to the front door.

So another home experiment.....look at the inside of your front door lock. Do you need a key to lock/unlock it from the inside? (What's yours look like Bruce?)

So does anyone have a photo of the cottage front door lock, seen from the inside?????

[EDIT TO ADD: Oggi is a glossy and gossipy Italian women's magazine.]

///

 

[LondonJohn]

A little off the topic at hand, but there was an interesting article posted by 'Michael' over at PMF recently, about Luciano Aviello's claims his brother killed Meredith. I'm less interested in that since it sounds like a load of garbage, though I've posted the whole thing here anyway. But there was a detail in the article that confirms something that's been discussed before on the thread: the cottage front door needed to be locked and unlocked with a key, even from inside. Therefore if Rudy acted alone, or with anyone other than a resident, he would have needed to take Meredith's keys in order to unlock the front door and get out of the house. I would argue this in itself makes his motive for taking Meredith's keys far stronger than any motive Knox and Sollecito may have had. Taking Meredith's keys wouldn't just have been a random choice for him; it would have been absolutely necessary. The Italian article:



And a rough translation of the above. Not sure what an 'associate justice' is, unless it's politically correct speak for 'jail bird'.

I've thought before about the whole key situation. I too believe that the way the house was found is consistent with Guede as lone attacker, but for perhaps slightly different reasons:

Suppose that Guede did arrive alone at the house that evening, and that Meredith did let him in - using her set of keys to unlock the front door. She'd have almost certainly locked the front door again behind her, once Guede was inside the house.

So, suppose Guede then murdered Meredith (as the culmination of whatever preamble might have occurred). Suppose that he then went to clean blood off his hands in the bathroom, staged a break-in to suggest forced entry by a stranger, and made to leave via the front door. Except, the door was now locked: leaving would be impossible without a key.

Suppose that Guede therefore returned to Meredith's room - primarily to retrieve her set of keys in order to unlock the front door. While he rifled through her handbag (leaving mixed DNA), he found Meredith's complete set of house keys, and he also stole the money/cards that were in there and her two cellphones. He then noticed that since there was more than one key on the keyring, one of the keys was most likely the key to Meredith's bedroom door. Suppose therefore that he then spontaneously decided to take advantage of adding an additional barrier to the discovery of Meredith's body, and locked her bedroom door behind him as he left.

Now, suppose that Guede reached the front door, and unlocked it using the key from Meredith's keyring. Guede wouldn't probably have known the house (or its occupants) well enougn to know that the front door wouldn't stay shut unless it was locked shut. After all, most front doors automatically shut firm when pulled closed, and most also lock automatically in some was as well.

So, I think it would be perfectly logical for Guede to unlock the front door (with him perhaps assuming that it had been "double-locked" for extra security), then to exit quickly to the driveway. I would be pretty certain that he'd want to avoid lingering outside the front door for any time at all - in case he was spotted by a passer by. Therefore, it makes sense that he would assume that the front door would remain firmly shut (and probably locked to a certain level) once he pulled it shut behind him. He could therefore avoid lingering to put the key in the lock from the outside, and could instead escape quickly into the shadows.

And that could explain AK finding the front door open upon her return the following morning, and her finding Meredith's door locked.

 

[RWVBWL]

Hi Bob001,
The UK newspapers seem to have a lot to read about involving the murder of Miss Kercher. Here's another interesting story:

Aviello, of Naples, said: 'At the time I was living in Perugia and my brother was staying with me.
'When he came to my house he had a bloodstained jacket on and was carrying a flick knife. He said he had broken into a house and killed a girl and then he had run away.'

He added: 'My brother told me that he and an Albanian friend of his called Florio were breaking into a house to steal some pictures.
'The house they broke into didn't have any pictures and instead they found the poor English girl who started screaming like mad.
'Antonio stabbed her in the throat then he tried to stifle her screams.
'Meredith defended herself like mad, scratching and hitting out at him.'
Antonio's whereabouts are not known but he is thought to be in Naples.
Knox's lawyer Carlo Dalla Vedova said: 'What Aviello has to say is very important and his statement is part of our appeal. We are asking that he be called and give evidence.
'What he has to say is very significant because the keys to the house were never found and this aspect should at least be investigated and verified.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...Meredith-Kercher-claims-Mafia-supergrass.html

I can't wait to read the comments section also!

Anyways, I wonder if there is anyway to show Miss Allesandra Formica photo's of Antonio Aviello or this Florio guy?
I also wonder if the police, or the defense have looked very hard for the missing apartment keys? I have always felt the keys were an overlooked clue. Might it be a good idea to at least try to search for them by using a metal detector in the yard of Mr. Aviello's last residence?
Even Frank Sfarzo of Perugia Shock says that he has looked for the keys and the knife. Gosh, if I recall correctly, Mr. Sfarzo even found a knife, not the murder weapon though, that the police never found in the immediate area surrounding the murder scene afterwards.
More superb police work done there, I suppose!
RWVBWL

 

[Bob001]

But from the inside---on all front door locks I've seen---no key is required to lock/unlock the door.

I don't know anything about this door. But if a door has a glass panel in it, it's not at all uncommon to install a deadbolt lock that requires using a key on both sides, so a burglar can't just break the glass and reach for the turn-button. Fire-safety experts usually recommend hiding an emergency key near the door where everyone in the house (who is supposed to be there, anyway) can find it. A standard lock is called single-cylinder; a lock that uses keys on both sides is a double-cylinder (two key cylinders). If Kercher had used a key to lock the door behind a visitor, someone would have had to unlock it with a key to leave. Of course, that might have kept her from escaping a visitor who turned violent, too.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

We have been researching the front door for quite some time now. I believe that Rudy needed the keys to exit. This would reaffirm my belief that he climbed through Filomena's window. It would also give a better explanation of why he locked the bedroom door. The keys may have given him the idea to lock it.

 

[Malkmus]

Even Frank Sfarzo of Perugia Shock says that he has looked for the keys and the knife. Gosh, if I recall correctly, Mr. Sfarzo even found a knife, not the murder weapon though, that the police never found in the immediate area surrounding the murder scene afterwards.
More superb police work done there, I suppose!
RWVBWL

Well, if it's true that the keys and knife were sealed under a wall with plaster, Frank wouldn't have found anything just by looking anyway. Someone would have to get a pick and chisel away at the hiding place. Of course I'm not saying anyone should go and do this to someone's property, just that if his story is true, it would require more than just looking with one's bare eyes.