Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[shuttlt]

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

Yes. All the pictures of the broken window make it clear that this is the case. The solution offered previously came back to me the moment I recalled what the window looked like.

 

[shuttlt]

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

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

With the exception of the glass stopping at the line of the outer shutter, why does there necessarily need to be anything inconsistent in the glass distribution with the rock being thrown from outside? In any case, the defense expert said that there were an infinite number of way that a rock could be thrown. A glass pattern consistent with a rock hoofed through a window probably has quite a loose set of bounds.

 

[Justinian2]

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

This is not entirely in synch with your post, but I noticed that one would be able to grab the outside shutter and easily use that hold to 'walk' up the side of the building to stand on the ledge before breaking the window. Anybody ever consider that he could have been standing on the window ledge when he used the rock to break the window? That would explain why the glass didn't go far.
My theory might require that the shutter be strong enough to hold Guede's weight.
Is the shutter strong? Are the hinges strong enough?

You also suggested that:

I'd noticed you'd become Public Enemy Number One of our 'friends' at PMF

This is the best complement I could get. Thank you!

 

[Kaosium]

With the exception of the glass stopping at the line of the outer shutter, why does there necessarily need to be anything inconsistent in the glass distribution with the rock being thrown from outside? In any case, the defense expert said that there were an infinite number of way that a rock could be thrown. A glass pattern consistent with a rock hoofed through a window probably has quite a loose set of bounds.

Isn't the direction the stone would be coming from off by 90 degrees then? Wouldn't that change the pattern? Isn't that how they'd be able to tell? That just is something that seems likely to me.

Well, it looks like I made Platonov's day at any rate.

 

[shuttlt]

Sadly, I think the position of Public Enemy Number 1 at PMF is already taken.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

____________________
[1] Yeah, Charlie, I watched the videos. Thanks. None of the kids ever climbed onto a ledge of shallow depth, at armpit height, using only his arms.

Look at the first few seconds of this video:

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

Notice how the kid grabs the overhanging arch and swings across to a foothold. That is exactly what Rudy could have done by climbing onto the concrete planter and grabbing the roof to swing across to the window ledge.

You can tell yourself it's some kind of impossible feat, but that is nonsense.

If you're looking for something comparable, see ROCK CLIMBING on YouTube where overhangs are climbed, but it's only done by reaching to a handhold above the shallow ledge. And if the window would have been "easy," how to you account for the remark made by Thoughtful's husband, an experienced rock climber, over on PMF last summer, when---in seeing the wall first hand---said climbing it would be virtually impossible? Or was he lying too?

Certainly he was mistaken, as the video linked above shows without a doubt.

[2] And of course the lovebirds remembered the status of Filomena door differently. I've explained why. Here's Raffaele's recollection from his Diary:

"As soon as we arrived inside the house, I left the mop in the entrance and I went towards
the other rooms so I could see what the hell had happened. I remember those moments well because I was agitated and alarmed. I think I saw Amanda take the mop bucket and
carry it to another room . The first thing I noticed was that Filomena’s room had the door wide open."

Wide open. The first thing he noticed. Do you think Raffaele was hallucinating this???

No, but he may not have remembered it correctly. I have here a book called Actual Innocence by Bary Scheck, Peter Neufeld, and Jim Dwyer. They have summarized the famous von Liszt experiment:

"In the von Liszt experiment, the student with the best recollection of the event made errors on about 26 percent of the significant details. Others were wrong in their account of 80 percent of what they had seen. These healthy young German university students not only made history; they also made it up."

I see many people in this discussion who express their opinions with great certainty, day after day, without ever troubling themselves to acquire any actual knowledge of the subject. That approach gives rise to implausible theories that place more reliance on extraneous data - like conflicting witness statements - than on the essential facts.

 

[shuttlt]

Isn't the direction the stone would be coming from off by 90 degrees then? Wouldn't that change the pattern? Isn't that how they'd be able to tell? That just is something that seems likely to me.

Can one necessarily tell? In scenario A you have the rock, thrown at an unknown velocity, from a location that we aren't absolutely sure of, hitting the window and simultaneously throwing the window and inner shutter open while breaking the window. There are a lot of variables there. Does anybody know for sure what the distribution would be?

On the other hand in scenario B we have a window, open at an angle we aren't quite sure of, hit by a rock traveling with a velocity we aren't sure of and hitting and shattering the window, potentially throwing it and the shutter back into the room depending on whether it was being held by someone.

Does anybody know any experts in rocks hoofed through windows?

 

[Kaosium]

There was no secret - it was simple.

But, we have just found more Foakers who exhibit 'broken window' perplexity.
Patient zero was IIRC Kevin Lowe or Charlie Wilkes and its still spreading it seems.

Struck you as silly - This is unshakeable confidence I referred to earlier.
You completely Misunderstood what you claimed to have read in Massei or else Regurgitated the nonsense from Science Spheres which should have struck you as silly but didn't.

The idea that the rock was thrown from inside and then was found in the room suggests that all sorts of back and forth has to take place. I have never seen a window like they're describing, I'm probably not alone in that regard, and it sounds like you've had fun with others over this.

 

[Justinian2]

Public Enemy #1 - ya, it's not me.

The Incas would have been able to get a 100 ton stone throught that window - with sides that were cut perfectly flat. I mean Guede's feat didn't require flying saucers or the help of Amanda and Raffaele.

 

[Juror]

With the exception of the glass stopping at the line of the outer shutter, why does there necessarily need to be anything inconsistent in the glass distribution with the rock being thrown from outside? In any case, the defense expert said that there were an infinite number of way that a rock could be thrown. A glass pattern consistent with a rock hoofed through a window probably has quite a loose set of bounds.

This is the issue I saw when I looked at this months back.

I am by no means a "rock throwing" expert (perhaps they needed to call in some of AK's friends as experts) but it seems intuitive that if the rock was thrown outside in versus sideways with the window open, the glass distribution would be scattered differently in the room.

The defense had shown that the actual distribution of glass in the room was consistent with the rock being thrown outside in and this did not seem to be disputed. Massei, however, latched onto the concept you reference above that there are an infinite number of ways glass can scatter when being hit with a rock as support that one of those infinite ways is consistent with his version.

There was no demonstration done by the prosecution showiing the glass could end up being scattered as it was accordingly to the court's version (at least not that I am aware of). This seemed odd given the burden of proof.

 

[Justinian2]

What if the rock were thrown from the window ledge?

 

[Kaosium]

This is not entirely in synch with your post, but I noticed that one would be able to grab the outside shutter and easily use that hold to 'walk' up the side of the building to stand on the ledge before breaking the window. Anybody ever consider that he could have been standing on the window ledge when he used the rock to break the window? That would explain why the glass didn't go far.

I would think he'd want to get a close as possible (while still on the ground) and just set-shot it, after opening the shutter if Filomena closed it most of the way like she thought she might of. Then retreat to the shadows and wait to see if anyone heard it inside or out. When the coast was clear go in, and I think either method I've seen would work, though I'd go straight up the side and use the shutter like you suggest if it would hold. That would seem easier than the balancing act along the edge.

I don't think it would have to hold his whole weight at one time.

 

[platonov]

Forest Gump is not a role model

The idea that the rock was thrown from inside and then was found in the room suggests that all sorts of back and forth has to take place. I have never seen a window like they're describing, I'm probably not alone in that regard, and it sounds like you've had fun with others over this.

So you have never seen [or apparently heard of ] a window that opens inwards yet are confident that the break-in wasn't staged and that Massei is silly.

You snipped the later part of my post which contained a Q

.

 

[Justinian2]

... though I'd go straight up the side and use the shutter like you suggest if it would hold. That would seem easier than the balancing act along the edge.

I don't think it would have to hold his whole weight at one time.

I just tried grabbing the molding on the side of a door and walking up the side of the door opening with rubber soled feet. The feet take quite a bit of the weight. Given the side of the building was brick (wasn't it?), then even more of the weight would be carried by the feet.

This would be a relatively easy feat for a gymnast.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

inherited improbabilities

The defense called an expert in ballistics as a witness. He testified that his tests showed how the rock could have been thrown from the outside. According to one report on his testimony, he was asked questions such as whether the rock were thrown overhanded or underhanded, which is entirely irrelevant. Even if I were willing to assign equal probabilities to the rock’s being thrown from the outside versus the inside, this would be insufficient to make a case against Sollecito and Knox, according to the following argument. Lesswrong points out, “The question of which of these two alternatives to believe thus reduces to the question of whether, given the evidence in the case, it's more believable that Knox and Sollecito are guilty, or that the burglary was "authentic". Massei and Cristiani, of course, aim to convince us that the latter is the more improbable.

But notice what this means! This means that the proposition that the burglary was fake assumes, or inherits, the same high burden of proof as the proposition that Knox and Sollecito committed murder!”

 

[Juror]

Massei uses the lack of glass on the ground below the window as evidence the rock was thrown from the inside with the outer shutter closed which stopped the glass fragments from falling outside. He is assuming that if the rock was thrown from the outside in, there would be some glass breaking back toward the direction of the throw - essentially he accepts the glass distribution will follow a pattern.

However, when it comes to the glass on the inside of the room, the glass distribution is not meaningful to Massei as he takes the position there are an infinite ways glass distributes when hit with a stone and he just assumes one of those distriibutions is consistent with his version.

So if the court's version is the glass distribution is not meaningful, the same logic should be applied to the apparent lack of glass on the exterior I would think in order to be consistent. He could just as easily assumed there are infinite ways glass distributes when hit with a rock and one of those infinite ways has no glass falling to the exterior below the window when thrown outside in and conclude the alleged lack of glass below the window is meaningless.

His reasoning seems arbitrary.

 

[platonov]

Hazel O Connor - no !

Can one necessarily tell? In scenario A you have the rock, thrown at an unknown velocity, from a location that we aren't absolutely sure of, hitting the window and simultaneously throwing the window and inner shutter open while breaking the window. There are a lot of variables there. Does anybody know for sure what the distribution would be?

On the other hand in scenario B we have a window, open at an angle we aren't quite sure of, hit by a rock traveling with a velocity we aren't sure of and hitting and shattering the window, potentially throwing it and the shutter back into the room depending on whether it was being held by someone.

Does anybody know any experts in rocks hoofed through windows?

We had some YouTube videos from London John or Charlie Wilkes earlier I believe....for those of us who, like Kaosium, have never seen windows or indeed windows being broken by projectiles.

They added something to the debate - The MA prohibits me from saying what, exactly

.

 

[Justinian2]

...
So if the court's version is the glass distribution is not meaningful, the same logic should be applied to the apparent lack of glass on the exterior I would think in order to be consistent. He could just as easily assumed there are infinite ways glass distributes when hit with a rock and one of those infinite ways has no glass falling to the exterior below the window when thrown outside in and conclude the alleged lack of glass below the window is meaningless.

His reasoning seems arbitrary.

The problem in my estimation is NOT with the facts. AK and RS would have a slam dunk win if the case ONLY required fact and logic.

The real problem is how to spoon feed the data to the jury so that they will understand the facts and logic even if they are prejudiced.

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for rule 12.

 

[platonov]

Massei uses the lack of glass on the ground below the window as evidence the rock was thrown from the inside with the outer shutter closed which stopped the glass fragments from falling outside. He is assuming that if the rock was thrown from the outside in, there would be some glass breaking back toward the direction of the throw - essentially he accepts the glass distribution will follow a pattern.

However, when it comes to the glass on the inside of the room, the glass distribution is not meaningful to Massei as he takes the position there are an infinite ways glass distributes when hit with a stone and he just assumes one of those distriibutions is consistent with his version.

So if the court's version is the glass distribution is not meaningful, the same logic should be applied to the apparent lack of glass on the exterior I would think in order to be consistent. He could just as easily assumed there are infinite ways glass distributes when hit with a rock and one of those infinite ways has no glass falling to the exterior below the window when thrown outside in and conclude the alleged lack of glass below the window is meaningless.

His reasoning seems arbitrary.

Nonsense - the glass on only the inner part of [half of the] ledge/cill showed clearly that the window was broken from within the room with the outer shutters closed.
That along with all the other evidence* made it childsplay for the cops to figure out.
* Ask Kaosium [or Kestrel] to lay it out - he has an encyclopedic knowledge of Massei.

This talk of infinites and ballistics given the perplexity over the fact that windows can open inwards is on on a par with the 'truther' freefall physics.
.

 

[Kaosium]

So you have never seen [or apparently heard of ] a window that opens inwards yet are confident that the break-in wasn't staged and that Massei is silly.

Maybe I think Massei is silly because he can come up with a concept like this and then never bother to explain it so it makes sense? Even now that I understand the concept it just makes less sense, as that would require at least some glass to fly in a direction perpendicular to the window.

Shall we go to the part where he tries to explain why there was no clean up of the murder site that night because it would be easier the next day? Like after the blood dried and all, and someone else might have discovered the body first--except the latter seems almost impossible in his mental universe?

You snipped the later part of my post which contained a Q

.

Platonov, your question deficit with me alone is probably in double digits, and as I recall it was along the lines of whether I was stupid, confused or lying, wasn't it?

So my answer is....

42.