Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[shuttlt]

It is when it's the second story and requires athletic ability. Some have claimed they think it impossible, I never understood that once I saw the picture, but it would take skill.

If any fit, young thief could have done the same, I don't see why and how a first floor window could usefully be described as his MO. If, as I think Frank Sfarzo seems to be claiming, Rudy was the sole burglar in Perugia who didn't restrict himself to the ground floor, then perhaps I am wrong.

I'd have just left the door open, maybe I'm just lazy.

What would the door being left open tell anyone? Somebody killed her and left without closing the door behind them. If we are imagining somebody with access to the house wishing to give the impression that access had been gained by somebody without access to the house, something more dramatic is required.

The idea in the Massei Report that they staged it by going down and getting a rock, then took it upstairs and threw it out the window, then retrieved the rock and took it back upstairs is something one has to read with a smile on one's face. Oh, and they did all that after trashing the room, which is a big part of the 'proof' it was staged due to where some glass fragments were.

It all sounded backwards to me...

On this, I have no opinion one way or another.

I suspect if they could get Raffaele to temporarily say Amanda left and told him to lie, and Amanda to 'accuse' someone else and then recant it, if they knew Rudy was involved they'd have given him up. Raffaele might have gone home with Patrick if he'd have just stuck to the story that Amanda left and told him to lie. I think some people attribute to these college kids the kind of loyalty elite special forces units admire.

I don't think loyalty need necessarily be involved. This hypothetical situation is hugely pressured, even if the police are sweet and nice. All sorts of off the cuff decisions have unimaginable consequences. Perhaps all of this is down to ********ting on their feet as best they could? Giving Rudy up in a way that didn't look ridiculously suspicious and at the same time didn't implicate themselves may not have been terribly easy. I doubt I could do it, but then I'm no good at lying.

 

[Katody Matrass]

(how can I chec this is a blowup though the naked eye?)

Indeed, it may be not obvious to everyone.
If you have access to image editing software , you can rotate and rescale (keeping proportions) it. It fits perfectly the footprint in the original "Rilievo nr 2" photo. That can also help you locate the tile lines in the blowup.

My finding was that a perspective correction to 245 mm can be done.

If you can do it, it would be beneficial and educational to us all.

However, I also noted that Vinci did not demonstrate this can't be done, because he didn't deal with the process of measurement of the picture that was done by Rinaldi. (I mean the measurement, not the perspective correction)

According to the appeal Rinaldi himself couldn't explain or document that process. So there was nothing to deal with. Vinci's process wasn't dealt with either by the prosecution.

 

[Kaosium]

It just got better.

OK - So we have joint leaders.

But can we be sure this science spheres dude wasn't just posting this nonsense to win a bet i.e. to see if anybody would actually believe it without checking ***

Your call - either way.

Before you post on this again - you might be advised to check what Massei actually says.

Or have a look at (photos of) the window and as the old joke has it "Someone find a 6 year old"

ETA *** On a more serious note if this is the kind of nonsense the 'FoAK' gurus publish and the Foakers then use as sources, then its a perfect wedding of mendacity & credulity and explains much.
.

"This situation, like all the
other glaring inconsistencies, is adequately and satisfactorily explained if one
supposes that the rock was thrown from the inside of the room with the two
shutters pulled inwards so that they blocked the pieces of glass from falling to the ground below. Once the glass had been broken from inside, the rock was set down at some place in the room, and the shutters were pushed towards the outside, being thus opened from within the room."

--Page 51

http://www.seattlepi.com/dayart/pdf/Massei_Report.pdf

You throw it from inside the room and you have to go get it to put it back in the room, and you have to have gone to get it in the first place. That's a lot of work, isn't it? Wouldn't have just been easier to throw it from outside in the first place?

 

[shuttlt]

If the outer shutters were pulled inward to stop the pieces of glass falling to the ground isn't the implication that it would also have stopped the rock? If the rock threw the shutters open, surely you'd have glass on the ground?

 

[Katody Matrass]

But the shutters were open because they were documented to be open, while there is no witness report about their having being closed or re-opened after 18:00 of nov 1. So they were open. It's simple how things works, even if we limit ourself to this level. We just cannot assume in the first instance something that is not documented and insert it arbitraily in the story. Moreover, it is wrong to expect that we discuss the further sources to establish these details, because these should not be discussed as long as the trial is ongoing. If I have a number of sources for being convinced about a detail, I cannot discuss these points until the whole process is closed.

I see. Since your sources are confidential and you cannot reveal them, we must set this issue apart for now. Luckily whether the balcony shutters were open or not is quite tangential. Rudy could have other rational concerns preventing him from choosing that approach.

ps. btw - not directly related. You may note that the cottage suffered two further break ins, both were (obviously from the windows on the balcony, regardless of external shutters which are very easy to open if you can just stand there with both hands free.

The burglars (or squatters) had a comfort of certainty that the cottage was uninhabited. They were no afraid of being surprisedby a tenant that just woke up, or went out of the loo, etc.
And that's exactly what Rudy had to take into account.

 

[platonov]

Third time lucky ....maybe ?

"This situation, like all the
other glaring inconsistencies, is adequately and satisfactorily explained if one
supposes that the rock was thrown from the inside of the room with the two
shutters pulled inwards so that they blocked the pieces of glass from falling to the ground below. Once the glass had been broken from inside, the rock was set down at some place in the room, and the shutters were pushed towards the outside, being thus opened from within the room."

--Page 51

http://www.seattlepi.com/dayart/pdf/Massei_Report.pdf

You throw it from inside the room and you have to go get it to put it back in the room, and you have to have gone to get it in the first place. That's a lot of work, isn't it? Wouldn't have just been easier to throw it from outside in the first place?

No Kaosium - you still haven't grasped it.

I am seriously starting to consider that many of you guys are completely genuine and don't actually understand very simple issues.
It makes all of this kinda futile though -- and doesn't explain the continued confidence/arrogance.

How many times has one to be shown ones understanding is flawed before starting to reflect on this ?

 

[Kestrel]

If the outer shutters were pulled inward to stop the pieces of glass falling to the ground isn't the implication that it would also have stopped the rock? If the rock threw the shutters open, surely you'd have glass on the ground?

If the rock was thrown from the inside, why is there no damage to the inside of the exterior shutter? Why are there no glass fragments caught in the louvers of the exterior shutter?

There is clear damage to the outer surface of the interior shutter. Damage to the wood and embedded glass fragments consistent with a rock thrown into the window and then hitting the interior shutter. The pattern of glass fragments on the window sill indicate the window was closed when it was broken. The scattering of glass fragments across the room also indicates the window was broken from outside.

 

[Kaosium]

If any fit, young thief could have done the same, I don't see why and how a first floor window could usefully be described as his MO. If, as I think Frank Sfarzo seems to be claiming, Rudy was the sole burglar in Perugia who didn't restrict himself to the ground floor, then perhaps I am wrong.

I agree it's not the onerous task I've seen many say it was. As to the 'MO' it would just be what might first occur to the police as he'd recently been caught doing it and might be the first to come to mind as he lived in the area and hung out nearby sometimes.

What would the door being left open tell anyone? Somebody killed her and left without closing the door behind them. If we are imagining somebody with access to the house wishing to give the impression that access had been gained by somebody without access to the house, something more dramatic is required.

Or they just surprised someone when coming home, or the door had been left open while someone went outside for a moment etc. It just seems to me entirely unnecessary. If you want to stage a burglary why not take something valuable and dump it like Filomena's computer?

I don't think loyalty need necessarily be involved. This hypothetical situation is hugely pressured, even if the police are sweet and nice. All sorts of off the cuff decisions have unimaginable consequences. Perhaps all of this is down to ********ting on their feet as best they could? Giving Rudy up in a way that didn't look ridiculously suspicious and at the same time didn't implicate themselves may not have been terribly easy. I doubt I could do it, but then I'm no good at lying.

'I wasn't sure and I'm afraid of him, he's creepy?'

Anything would have been better than the one she knew had an alibi, being as she talked to him that night, which is what got her in trouble in the first place apparently.

 

[Machiavelli]

(..)

According to the appeal Rinaldi himself couldn't explain or document that process. So there was nothing to deal with. Vinci's process wasn't dealt with either by the prosecution.

This argument is not enough. It is the interest of the accused to discuss the points brought up by the public minister. The public minister makes the agenda and topics of discussion, not Vinci. If the expert doesn't look at the measurements using the same picture, everybody would notice he is not effective in defending that specific point. You can't prevent the trial to discuss that specific picture and that measurment brought in by Rinaldi, to say just change topic and discuss something else, it doesn't work. Rinaldi didn't discuss Vinci, but what makes people go to prison is Rinaldi's point of accusation and not Vinci's data. If Vinci's measurement is wrong that has no relevant consequence, but the measurement brought by Rinaldi is the relavant topic that makse the accusation.

 

[Kaosium]

No Kaosium - you still haven't grasped it.

I am seriously starting to consider that many of you guys are completely genuine and don't actually understand very simple issues.
It makes all of this kinda futile though -- and doesn't explain the continued confidence/arrogance.

How many times has one to be shown ones understanding is flawed before starting to reflect on this ?

You having fun, Platonov?

So it was two rocks then? They find one on the lawn or something?

You're talking about silly little details like they're the key to the case. This section I didn't spend much time on as it's trying its very best to pretend someone can't break into a second story window and get in without getting 'guillotined' by glass. They make it sound like an impossible chamber of horrors and I just laugh my way through it. That materials scientist I linked says their theory of glass distribution is bogus, the defense Sgt says the rock came from the outside too and they try to discredit him by saying he's never studied 'stone throwing.'

Where on earth does anyone study 'stone throwing?' What kind of idiotic way is that to challenge a witness?

 

[platonov]

If the outer shutters were pulled inward to stop the pieces of glass falling to the ground isn't the implication that it would also have stopped the rock? If the rock threw the shutters open, surely you'd have glass on the ground?

No

 

[shuttlt]

This whole discussion about the window takes me back.

Doesn't the glass pane open inwards? Couldn't one open the window a bit with the outside shutter closed and lob the rock at the glass surface that would ordinarily be pointing outwards?

It's so long ago, I can't remember the proper solution.

 

[Katody Matrass]

This argument is not enough. It is the interest of the accused to discuss the points brought up by the public minister. The public minister makes the agenda and topics of discussion, not Vinci. If the expert doesn't look at the measurements using the same picture, everybody would notice he is not effective in defending that specific point. You can't prevent the trial to discuss that specific picture and that measurment brought in by Rinaldi, to say just change topic and discuss something else, it doesn't work. Rinaldi didn't discuss Vinci, but what makes people go to prison is Rinaldi's point of accusation and not Vinci's data. If Vinci's measurement is wrong that has no relevant consequence, but the measurement brought by Rinaldi is the relavant topic that makse the accusation.

Fair enough, I'm not arguing the defense did perfect job. Actually I'm more interested in facts and scenarios than courtroom mistakes.

 

[Juror]

Science Spheres has the Massei rock throwing wrong IIRC.

Massei's, or the courts, version is the outer shutter was closed and both the window (opens inward) and inner shutter were open. The rock was then thown (parallel to the wall?) through the glass and crashed into the inner shutter. This explains the (alleged) no glass below the window on the outside and also explains the fresh dent on the inner shutter.

It did not explain the glass distribution in the room. Massei seemed to handwave that issue away.

 

[platonov]

You having fun, Platonov?

So it was two rocks then? They find one on the lawn or something?

You're talking about silly little details like they're the key to the case. This section I didn't spend much time on as it's trying its very best to pretend someone can't break into a second story window and get in without getting 'guillotined' by glass. They make it sound like an impossible chamber of horrors and I just laugh my way through it. That materials scientist I linked says their theory of glass distribution is bogus, the defense Sgt says the rock came from the outside too and they try to discredit him by saying he's never studied 'stone throwing.'

Where on earth does anyone study 'stone throwing?' What kind of idiotic way is that to challenge a witness?

They aren't silly* BUT are simple enough for a child to grasp in seconds.

You failed to do so - even after your error was initially pointed out and again after actually posting [but obviously not understanding] the relevant section from Massei.
People in glass houses & stones etc..

* 26 yrs is serious business.

 

[platonov]

This whole discussion about the window takes me back.

Doesn't the glass pane open inwards? Couldn't one open the window a bit with the outside shutter closed and lob the rock at the glass surface that would ordinarily be pointing outwards?

It's so long ago, I can't remember the proper solution.

I'll admit its a very complex issue but I think you may have it

What a glazier might call the Outer Face (OF)

 

[Kaosium]

Science Spheres has the Massei rock throwing wrong IIRC.

So what was the secret then? I just remembered one of the 'proofs' was they said it came from inside, which struck me as silly due to the fact a rock was found in the room.

Massei's, or the courts, version is the outer shutter was closed and both the window (opens inward) and inner shutter were open. The rock was then thown (parallel to the wall?) through the glass and crashed into the inner shutter. This explains the (alleged) no glass below the window on the outside and also explains the fresh dent on the inner shutter.

So they meant the rock never left the room? Is that what that's supposed to mean?

It did not explain the glass distribution in the room. Massei seemed to handwave that issue away.

I wouldn't be able to tell anyway, I try not to break windows, it makes a mess. Here's what the report and the materials scientist say:

As for the presence of glass in Romanelli'ʹs room, the violence of the blow, the characteristics of the glass (which was rather thin as indicated by Romanelli and Pasquali), the large rock used, and finally the shield effect caused by the inner shutter hanging half-*‐‑open behind the glass pane [41] (a position of the inner shutter which corresponds to the scratch on it visible in the photos) give an adequate explanation of the distribution of the glass.

--Pg. 52

http://www.seattlepi.com/dayart/pdf/Massei_Report.pdf

I’m a materials scientist with a strong emphasis on theoretical mechanics. I have reviewed the evidence of the glass distribution, the pitted inner shutter, the condition of the glass left in and on the window sill, etc. It is my professional opinion that this evidence is clear: the rock was thrown through the window from the outside, not the inside. In addition to the defense expert Sergeant Pasquali, an unpaid independent forensic engineer, Ron Hendry, has also reviewed the evidence and come to the same conclusion.

http://www.sciencespheres.com/

 

[shuttlt]

[Delete while I reread something]

 

[Kaosium]

This whole discussion about the window takes me back.

Doesn't the glass pane open inwards? Couldn't one open the window a bit with the outside shutter closed and lob the rock at the glass surface that would ordinarily be pointing outwards?

It's so long ago, I can't remember the proper solution.

I've never seen a window like that in my life, I'd never even think of something like that. It opens inward?

 

[Kaosium]

kaosium,

he only seems to be considering the rock being thrown from the outside in, or the inside out. He doesn't seem to consider the possibility just mentioned, which if one wanted to break the window without being observed seems like a good way to go about it.

So you pull the window open and throw the rock kinda side to side so it never leaves the room?

So how come the three guys who looked at the glass distribution think it's consistent with the rock coming from outside?