Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[MissWorld]

I think you're seriously underestimating the level of obsession the guilters have with this case. We've recently had guilters visiting Perugia and poking about the murder scene, and one of them has sent a 2,000 word letter to Rudy Guede trying to persuade him to implicate Amanda and Raffaele.

I'm certainly interested in the case, but I'm not going to lose any sleep if the appeal fails.

..and I think that you *********** are seriously mistaking 'obsession' with an honest desire for the truth.

Perhaps you should add 'Dictionary' to your Christmas wishlist. There really is no such word as 'guilter' either.

Edited by Locknar: 

Edited, breach of Rule 0; name calling does not advance your point of view, is not on topic, nor is it "civil and polite".

 

[Withnail1969]

I said if Curatolo's testimony is true, then they are guilty.
I am not accepting things.

Meaning if he actually saw them sitting together on November 2, they are guilty.
Actully, by the way, this would be circumstantial evidence against them even if he saw them them on Nov 1, because it would be evidence that Amanda and Raffaele lied on their whereabouts.

But he saw disco buses. No disco buses were running on Nov 1st 2007. Why are you talking about Nov 2nd? Curatolo doesn't claim to have seen them on Nov 2nd.

 

[shuttlt]

Single glazing (I take it the windows in the appartment were single glazed) block around 25dB. So, deduct 31dB.

That gives between 18dB and 29.8dB. Deduct what you please for distance, etc, etc.

For myself it's borderline regardless of distance. If the windows aren't that great and without too much background noise, perhaps. It strikes me as at least theoretically possible.

 

[Machiavelli]

Originally Posted by RoseMontague View Post
Yes, the scream came from inside, behind closed windows. You will have to factor that in.

ETA, the 40 meters may be measured from level to level and does not take into account the angle higher to lower, if I remember correctly. I think a straight line window to window measurement that was done was in the range of 70 meters, but I will try and find the reference.

The cottage apartment's windows (their ground level) is 6 metres below Nara's ear. This means the correction of distance due to the angle is quantified in about half a metre (41 metres instead of 40,5).

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>
I would propose a reverse point of reasoning: rather than say one element in the prosecution theory implies "game over" and innocence, I would point out that the theories for innocence are based on a series of necessary elements, each of them unlikely. And if only one of them is false, they are guilty.
If Amanda's confession is a misleading of the investigation, she is guilty. If the burglary is staged, she is guilty. If the footprint is Sollecito's, they are guilty. If the bra clasp is not planted or not due to secondary transfer, they are guilty. If their recollection of facts is a series of lies, they are hampering the investigation and this is evidence of guilt. If the luminol footprints are not caused by something like a copper-based substance in a context unrelated to the murder, they are guilty. If Curatolo's testimony alone is true, they are guilty. If there is evidence on one of the two, the othr is guilty. If a cleanup occurred, they are guilty.
Those explanations are actually the ones logically necessary, the one actually on a linear logic series as Christmas lights on electrified wire. The logical tendence is that if on only one element the unlikely innocent explanation is false, the two are guilty.

Oy vey. What more is there to say?

 

[Machiavelli]

But he saw disco buses. No disco buses were running on Nov 1st 2007. Why are you talking about Nov 2nd? Curatolo doesn't claim to have seen them on Nov 2nd.

Yes I meant 1st. No matter the day in fact. It only matters whether they told the truth or not.
This is all there is nothing to say about this point.

 

[shuttlt]

If the actual window-to-window distance is in fact 70 metres then ShuttIt's own calculation would seem to indicate that there is no way Nara could have heard anything, especially when you factor in the additional window at the cottage end of things.

If they do, then it was worth doing the calculations. Could I see yours?

 

[Withnail1969]

Single glazing (I take it the windows in the appartment were single glazed) block around 25dB. So, deduct 31dB.

That gives between 18dB and 29.8dB. Deduct what you please for distance, etc, etc.

For myself it's borderline regardless of distance. If the windows aren't that great and without too much background noise, perhaps. It strikes me as at least theoretically possible.

There is a significant difference between 40 metres and 70-75 metres. The windows in the cottage also had interior and exterior wooden shutters.

The distance is not a side issue. Interior and exterior wooden shutters are not a side issue. The 13.5 mph wind on the night of Nov 1st is not a side issue.

 

[shuttlt]

You probably think I don't know decibels work on a logarithmic scale.

If I've made an error, please provide a correction. It's perfectly possible that I have.

Again, where are you getting 40 metres from?

40m, 70m I'm not pushing any of these numbers. I've given my workings. Bung in whatever distance you please.

 

[TomCH]

If the actual window-to-window distance is in fact 70 metres then ShuttIt's own calculation would seem to indicate that there is no way Nara could have heard anything, especially when you factor in the additional window at the cottage end of things.

How so?

If at 40m it's 60dB, at 70m it's 55dB.

(20 log10(40/70) = -4.9dB)

 

[shuttlt]

There is a significant difference between 40 metres and 70-75 metres.

Less than 6dB.

The windows in the cottage also had interior and exterior wooden shutters.

I recall that. I don't think that would make a huge difference. Probably a bit though.

The distance is not a side issue.

It is if it doesn't make much difference to whether she could, or could have heard the sound whether it was 40, or 70, or 200m.

Interior and exterior wooden shutters are not a side issue. The 13.5 mph wind on the night of Nov 1st is not a side issue.

May I see your calculations?

 

[Alt+F4]

I don't think either side is happy about the 2-3 movies being produced while the appeal has not even been completed.

I agree with you that these movies are counter productive for both sides. Are they using Amanda's name, likeness and story without her permission? How is that possible?

 

[Machiavelli]

Fair enough. My opinion is that he has made an error in judgment. By hiring a lawyer that did his arguing for him he shows that his conclusion was made prior to the case being decided. He placed his family in opposition to Amanda's family by doing so.

No, he hired a lawyer as civil party - as provided by the law - in order to find the truth. The investigation the lawyer performed lead to collect evidence against the defendants, which the party found convicing. The party obviously expresses their conclusion to the judges: the family obviously take part to the trial and obviously draw their conclusion on the evidence, independently from the court. The aim is the truth, the aim is not Amanda's family.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I wonder why all your posts consists in rants about what the guilters do (the guilters i assume intended as a race, a collective concept).
You generalize about what partso of umanity under you labeles believe and do. It seems your aim is repeating this judgements on lables of people.

We do that a lot around here. As well as dissecting whether or not the claims of the various woo-woos and conspiracy theorists around here are true or false, we are also very interested in the characteristic ways in which these people get to their deluded beliefs.

May I recall, you are the poster who believes there is no evidence Raffaele Sollecito actually wrote about having pricked Meredith's hand. You are also the one who calculates 21.3% the probability of A when events X Y Z are given, eah of them with a joint probability of 60% to imply A.
My calculation was also wrong, but havig reviewd formulas I found the probablity of A is still 80% if three events occur each implying 60% of certainity.
You are also the person who believes that, if just one element that you consider necessary in a sequence of events for guilt is not proven, then the whole of theories for guilt collapses. You fail to consider how: elements that you consider necessary are in fact only sufficent, and fail to consider that no specific combination of elements is necessary to convict. You also fail to consider tha principle that disproving a prosecution theory and conclude for innocence are two sepearte and different concepts (the first leads to the repetition - rimando - of a trial in the same level of first or second instance, the second leads to an acquittal in first or second instance).
You maybe don't consider even the fact that Rudy Guede and the other two defendants have been convicted on the basis of different theories, and their sentencing are both valid.

Normally I would find it tiresome that you are making so many unfounded and in fact incorrect claims, with absolute confidence, about what I have and have not considered. However in the context of my previous post I think it's very kind of you to provide us with such a valuable example of what I was talking about.

I would propose a reverse point of reasoning: rather than say one element in the prosecution theory implies "game over" and innocence, I would point out that the theories for innocence are based on a series of necessary elements, each of them unlikely. And if only one of them is false, they are guilty.
If Amanda's confession is a misleading of the investigation, she is guilty. If the burglary is staged, she is guilty. If the footprint is Sollecito's, they are guilty. If the bra clasp is not planted or not due to secondary transfer, they are guilty. If their recollection of facts is a series of lies, they are hampering the investigation and this is evidence of guilt. If the luminol footprints are not caused by something like a copper-based substance in a context unrelated to the murder, they are guilty. If Curatolo's testimony alone is true, they are guilty. If there is evidence on one of the two, the othr is guilty. If a cleanup occurred, they are guilty.
Those explanations are actually the ones logically necessary, the one actually on a linear logic series as Christmas lights on electrified wire. The logical tendence is that if on only one element the unlikely innocent explanation is false, the two are guilty.

It's not particularly insightful to say "If the prosecution's theory is true, they are guilty!". That is merely a tautology. It's also an irrelevant tautology in most of the cases you suggest since as you know very well there is no evidence of staging, no evidence of a clean-up, strong evidence that Curatolo was lying or mistaken, no coherent prosecution narrative about how the luminol footprints got where they are if they were made in blood on the night of the murder as opposed to being random artefacts and so on.

I'm perfectly happy to agree that staging is sufficient proof of guilt, a clean-up is sufficient proof of guilt and so on. Since they didn't happen, why should that worry anyone?

I'm not holding my breath for you or any of your community to acknowledge that the Naruto file is sufficient proof of innocence when combined with the body temperature, stomach contents and witness statements. Nor for any of you to acknowledge that the error log files are sufficient proof that they could not possibly have murdered Meredith at any time that night, regardless of whether you remain in denial about the witness statements and stomach contents. Nor for any of you to acknowledge that the stomach contents evidence proves that you were all utterly, provably and completely wrong in believing Nara and Curatolo to be reliable witnesses. One of the other things we see a lot around here is that believers in crazy things rarely change their minds even when confronted with ironclad proof that they are delusional.

 

[Withnail1969]

How so?

If at 40m it's 60dB, at 70m it's 55dB.

But it's never going to be 60 dB through a layer of glass and interior and exterior wooden shutters. He hasn't factored those in, just the window at Nara's end.

 

[Withnail1969]

Less than 6dB.


I recall that. I don't think that would make a huge difference. Probably a bit though.


It is if it doesn't make much difference to whether she could, or could have heard the sound whether it was 40, or 70, or 200m.


May I see your calculations?

I don't know exactly what numbers to put on these factors. Neither do you. That's why audiometric testing is necessary. That's all I've ever argued although obviously i'm highly skeptical about Nara's claims given that nobody else has ever confirmed them.

How loud do you think the sound of leaves rustling would be, 40 metres away on a breezy night through double glazing? How many decibels? That's what Nara claimed to be able to hear.

 

[shuttlt]

But it's never going to be 60 dB through a layer of glass and interior and exterior wooden shutters. He hasn't factored those in, just the window at Nara's end.

Sure, it'll do something, but shutters aren't airtight. Is single glazing + shutters as good as double glazing, or secondary glazing? If not then we're talking single digit decibels.

 

[Dan O.]

We won't know the answer until the tests have been done. Where are you getting 40 metres from? I assume you're just accepting Machiavelli's unsupported guesstimate without question?

That calculation might be correct if Meredith were standing On the cottage roof facing Nara's window at the time of her scream. The presumption though, using the prosecutions theory of the crime, is that Meredith was in her room at the time of this scream.

Meredith's window faces in the opposite direction and could not contribute to the sound reaching Nara's ear. The balcony door faces to the side and is shielded from Nara's view by the rest of the cottage. There is a small window in the large bath that faces Nara's window and sound from Meredith's bedroom can reach this window by bouncing down the hall, spreading out in the living room/kitchen and squeezing through the door to the bath. Then account for the glazing on this window. After that, it's a straight shot to Nara's window... almost. There is a small matter of the elevation of the road blocking the view. As I recall, Nara also claimed to have seen Amanda and Raffaele snuggling the day after. They would have been essentially in front of this window. But only the roof of the cottage was visible from Nara's window.

I'd love to see the Mythbusters bust this one. In their typical fashion, they wouldn't give up until they produced a loud enough noise for Nara to hear. Then the new tenant in the cottage could get double glazing when they replace all the windows that shattered

 

[RoseMontague]

No, he hired a lawyer as civil party - as provided by the law - in order to find the truth. The investigation the lawyer performed lead to collect evidence against the defendants, which the party found convicing. The party obviously expresses their conclusion to the judges: the family obviously take part to the trial and obviously draw their conclusion on the evidence, independently from the court. The aim is the truth, the aim is not Amanda's family.

Machiavelli,
Regardless of the aim, their lawyer argued in support of Amanda being guilty. Mr. Kercher is complaining about the cold shoulder from Amanda's family. I don't blame Amanda's family at all and I believe this aim you are referring to missed the mark on finding the truth and came up on the side of a wrongful conviction.

 

[shuttlt]

I don't know exactly what numbers to put on these factors. Neither do you. That's why audiometric testing is necessary. That's all I've ever argued although obviously i'm highly skeptical about Nara's claims given that nobody else has ever confirmed them.

So you don't say that it's impossible based on the distance etc. etc. your argument has been based on other people not hearing the scream? OK.

I had been under the impression that some people regarded it as obviously nonsense that she could have heard anything based on the physics of the situation. That was all I was seaking to address. Clearly there are a lot of variables that an experiment would be the only way to deal with.