Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Charlie Wilkes]

I love watching Parkour! Somehow though I don't think Rudy was a Parkour practicer. It is unfortunate the only person to attempt to enter through that window was a lawyer in a suit. The defense could have presented videos of several different people climbing right through that window as evidence showing how it was possibly accessed on the night of the crime. Perhaps one from the planter and another climbing up the grate of the lower window and another hanging off the roof overhang.

I am on the verge of my 53d birthday and not exactly lean and sinewy, but I have an outdoor balcony with an overhanging roof, and I experimented with the technique I think Rudy probably used. I could pull myself across to a window ledge four feet away.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

________________

Kevin,

In the scenario sketched by Massei, on page 52 of the English Translation of the MOTIVATIONS report, the rock never comes into contact with the exterior shutters. At the time of the staging those shutters are closed. The interior shutters, or "shades," behind the panes of glass, are closed too. Both of the frames, or casements, holding the window glass are swung open, or partially open. So, as the staging begins, the situation is as depicted, below, except that the exterior shutters are closed and glass is not yet broken................

You the stager are situated pretty much where the camera is. Then you throw the rock through the glass pane, which breaks. The rock continues through the frame to strike the wood "shade" behind the glass pane, leaving a "scar." (See arrow.) The shade is NOT latched, so it swings open (on its own hinges) permitting the rock to continue on its trajectory, bouncing off the shade, then falling onto the floor, as glass is scattered on the floor.

Later, the stagers partially open the external shutters, and close both the interior "shades," leaving the situation similar to that seen in the above photograph.

That's an even odder idea than I thought actually, but it makes the most sense of Massei's words of any interpretation I've seen, so thanks. I'll update my Larsen List.

That doesn't fit with glass being scattered across the room as if by a rock being thrown in from outside at all, nor does it do much of a job explaining the glass on the sill. In fact I can't see any aspect of the crime scene it explains as well as, let alone better than, the defence hypothesis.

 

[LondonJohn]

________________

Kevin,

In the scenario sketched by Massei, on page 52 of the English Translation of the MOTIVATIONS report, the rock never comes into contact with the exterior shutters. At the time of the staging those shutters are closed. The interior shutters, or "shades," behind the panes of glass, are closed too. Both of the frames, or casements, holding the window glass are swung open, or partially open. So, as the staging begins, the situation is as depicted, below, except that the exterior shutters are closed and glass is not yet broken................

[qimg]http://injusticeinperugia.com/hendry3.jpg[/qimg]

You the stager are situated pretty much where the camera is. Then you throw the rock through the glass pane, which breaks. The rock continues through the frame to strike the wood "shade" behind the glass pane, leaving a "scar." (See arrow.) The shade is NOT latched, so it swings open (on its own hinges) permitting the rock to continue on its trajectory, bouncing off the shade, then falling onto the floor, as glass is scattered on the floor.

Later, the stagers partially open the external shutters, and close both the interior "shades," leaving the situation similar to that seen in the above photograph.

///

No, Massei does not contend that the inner shutters were closed. If they were closed, it would have been impossible for the window itself to be open. Massei's version has the exterior shutters closed, and the left-hand window pane (as viewed from the inside) slightly open, with the left-hand interior shutter open to the same extent so that it is flush to the open left window pane.

But it's here that Massei's reasoning starts to unravel...again. He knows that the rock has to have been propelled through the window with a certain amount of force, in order to cause the damage seen on the outer surface of the interior shutter. So he concludes that the rock was thrown rather than, say, knocked against the window pane. But he also knows that glass was found on the window sill. He therefore realises that the left window would have to be only very slightly open if the broken glass were to have a chance of rebounding to the sill. And he also reasons that the exterior shutters would have had to have been closed, in order to prevent glass from falling out to the fround below.

But having the window merely ajar, with the exterior shutters tight closed, is completely incompatible with a thrown rock - it would be impossible to reach round and propel the rock with any force whatsoever in the confined space between the exterior shutter and the window pane. In fact, there would be barely enough room for the hand and rock to fit between the window pane and the exterior shutter, let alone enough space to draw the rock back and throw it towards the window pane.

Incidentally, that little section of the Massei report contains two other very bad pieces of reasoning. The first is that where he says:

"Indeed, if one supposes that the stone was thrown from the inside with the shutters pulled closed (as they must have been according to statements cited above)..."

It's fairly undisputed - as Massei notes when referring to the "statements cited above" that Filomena's exterior shutters were found on the morning of the 2nd November in a closed (but not locked) position. But how on Earth does Massei conclude that the shutters "must have been" closed during anything that happened the previous night? Has it not occurred to him that either an intruder or a stager might have opened the exterior shutters then closed them again?

The second bad piece of reasoning concerns Massei's unsupported assertion that if the glass was broken from the outside in, then significant amounts of glass would have rebounded outwards and landed on the ground below the window. In fact, with a thin single pane of glass like the one in Filomena's window, only small shards of glass would likely have flown backwards.

 

[LondonJohn]

I love watching Parkour! Somehow though I don't think Rudy was a Parkour practicer. It is unfortunate the only person to attempt to enter through that window was a lawyer in a suit. The defense could have presented videos of several different people climbing right through that window as evidence showing how it was possibly accessed on the night of the crime. Perhaps one from the planter and another climbing up the grate of the lower window and another hanging off the roof overhang.

I suspect the fact that this is a private residence with new tenants might have had some impact on the ability to conduct demonstrations with people actually climbing through the window......

 

[Dan O.]

I think there isn't a snowballs chance in hell that the defense, or any of the Amanda supporters, will actually attempt to give a demonstration of how easy it is. It would look kind of bad and foolish if it fails.

Would you change your position if it succeeded?

 

[Katody Matrass]

welcome

I am the poster who writes as “Yummi” on Perugia Murder File.

I am not planning to interact much with most people here. Recently some posters addressed topics from the case which I usually deal with, some of my posts were also explicitly cited. It is possible that I will answer to some of those topics here. The name “Machiavelli” here is the only one to be identified as the poster “Yummi”. Disclaimer: I will never use those nicks anywhere else, never on other forums.

Hi, Yummi! Warm welcomes to you!

I'm glad, as others, that you're open to a possibility of posting here
I'm eagerly expecting to witness a fierce yet civil discussion and I hope that you'll not find the extent of interaction here uncomfortable at any moment

 

[Katody Matrass]

I wonder how much these kids get paid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOOlUR9Cg1Q

Simple, they're world class gymnasts paid by FOA and hired by Marriott's PR juggernaut to pose as street kids.

 

[Amazer]

Would you change your position if it succeeded?

Yes, if the demonstration is successful; it would change my position with regard to the possible entry of Guede through the window.

 

[RoseMontague]

I may need to change my opinion of the feasibility of stepping over from the planter to the ledge. In this high resolution photo it appears to me that the planter is more than just slightly below the level of the ledge, rather it appears as much as 18-24 inches below. Perhaps this is an optical effect, if someone can give me a better perspective. Also you can see some white particles on the bottom left sole of lawyer dude's shoe. LOL.

http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/9552/wallshowingnail.jpg

 

[RoseMontague]

I am the poster who writes as “Yummi” on Perugia Murder File.

I am not planning to interact much with most people here. Recently some posters addressed topics from the case which I usually deal with, some of my posts were also explicitly cited. It is possible that I will answer to some of those topics here. The name “Machiavelli” here is the only one to be identified as the poster “Yummi”. Disclaimer: I will never use those nicks anywhere else, never on other forums.

Glad you are here and I appreciate the efforts on the translations of the Massei report. I hope you decide to actively participate. The questions of the phone calls between Amanda and Filomena are still bugging me. If you have time please look at these 3 posts for the background of the questions to follow.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6249534&postcount=4606
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6250495&postcount=4608
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6288040&postcount=4978

In the last post above I quoted from pg 387 of the Massei report:

Quote:
Reassured, therefore, also on the aspect which was most important to Amanda and Raffaele, Amanda called Romanelli, to whom she started to detail what she had noticed in the house (without, however, telling her a single word about the unanswered call made to Meredith, despite the question expressly put to her by Romanelli)

The question I have regards the use of the rather than that in the part that says despite the question expressly put to her by Romanelli.. Is this/that an accurate translation?

The second question I have regards that taped conversation I quoted from between Amanda and Filomena. In your opinion did they have problems communicating with each other?

 

[Katody Matrass]

I may need to change my opinion of the feasibility of stepping over from the planter to the ledge. In this high resolution photo it appears to me that the planter is more than just slightly below the level of the ledge, rather it appears as much as 18-24 inches below. Perhaps this is an optical effect, if someone can give me a better perspective. Also you can see some white particles on the bottom left sole of lawyer dude's shoe. LOL.

http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/9552/wallshowingnail.jpg

Hi, Rose!

In that picture you can actually count that the window is 3-4 brick layers above the planter level.

I woudn't say it's 18". Definitely not 24". (I had to convert it to metric system for myself 24" is 61cm - almost half of the window height)

Eyeballing some other photos I would say it's no more than 30 cm. (12 inches)
Obstacle impossible to negotiate? After watching Charlie's video link I'm not so sure. Those kids would get to that window in 2 seconds from any direction

 

[RoseMontague]

Hi, Rose!

In that picture you can actually count that the window is 3-4 brick layers above the planter level.

I woudn't say it's 18". Definitely not 24". (I had to convert it to metric system for myself 24" is 61cm - almost half of the window height)

Eyeballing some other photos I would say it's no more than 30 cm. (12 inches)
Obstacle impossible to negotiate? After watching Charlie's video link I'm not so sure. Those kids would get to that window in 2 seconds from any direction

Thanks Katody. I remember (more than) a few decades ago in school they were telling me to learn the metric system because in just a few years we would be using that system only. I considered it about as useful as my Latin classes at the time.

 

[Dan O.]

Yes, if the demonstration is successful; it would change my position with regard to the possible entry of Guede through the window.

Then it may be worth demonstrating even though you appear to already have the next goal post lined up for once this hurdle is crossed.

Will you accept slithering through head first over a heavy jacket as a successfull entry? This would be so easy that I could do it myself.

 

[Chris C]

I think there isn't a snowballs chance in hell that the defense, or any of the Amanda supporters, will actually attempt to give a demonstration of how easy it is. It would look kind of bad and foolish if it fails.

They way I understand it is, if you stand on that top bar on the bottom window your shoulders are level with the window your trying to climb in. Thats not exactly hard climbing. Here is a picture once again. Look at where that guys shoulders are. He still has 1 more step up to go. Unless your seriously out of shape, you could easily pull your self in that window.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/RonHendry2------b.html

 

[Brooktrout]

It would take any of us all of three or four minutes to get into that room via a rock through the window. The Massei reconstruction is overly complex, makes little sense, and reeks of false authority. It really grasps at straws.

 

[Chris C]

It would take any of us all of three or four minutes to get into that room via a rock through the window. The Massei reconstruction is overly complex, makes little sense, and reeks of false authority. It really grasps at straws.

Did the cops rule that it was a fake break in at that lawyers office?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I may need to change my opinion of the feasibility of stepping over from the planter to the ledge. In this high resolution photo it appears to me that the planter is more than just slightly below the level of the ledge, rather it appears as much as 18-24 inches below. Perhaps this is an optical effect, if someone can give me a better perspective. Also you can see some white particles on the bottom left sole of lawyer dude's shoe. LOL.

http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/9552/wallshowingnail.jpg

The difference is about 12 inches. You can tell by counting the bricks in this photo:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/cottage_exterior_under_window.jpg

 

[RoseMontague]

Did the cops rule that it was a fake break in at that lawyers office?

As far as I can tell, nobody was charged. It is difficult to tell if it was even investigated. Rudy is just assumed to have been responsible but it is as if the cops have no interest in any of these break-ins that it appears he was responsible for. That is what made the ScienceSpheres post on this so interesting.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

I suspect the fact that this is a private residence with new tenants might have had some impact on the ability to conduct demonstrations with people actually climbing through the window......

If the defense had been on their toes they would have done it prior to June 2009... prior to the new tenants and, more importantly, prior to the trial.

 

[el buscador]

I just checked and there were two - one on a hair specimen and one on a presumed bloodstain, but both samples failed the quantification test, i.e., there was no DNA present.

Where were the hair and blood stain found? I had read at Rerugia Shock that they were found on the window latch and that the hair was black. Do you know what tests were performed on the hair?