• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Justinian2 said:
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.

Cartoons seem to work well with children and similar intellects.
Click to expand...


Not always - photos of actual windows aren't enough in some cases to explain complex hypothetical's like inward opening windows or external shutters.

.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
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.
Click to expand...

I used to prefer that scenario, too, until I tried to estimate the distances and sizes of various features of that window and wall. Then it dawned on me that Rudy could easily reach to the window latch while standing on the grill below.
 
platonov said:
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.
.
Click to expand...

What are you basing this on?
 
Kaosium said:
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?



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. :p
Click to expand...


I'm already familiar with the report - its quite easy to follow for many of us, the translators did a good job it seems.

But before you move on to pastures new - shouldn't you revisit the 'broken window' section.

With all due respect why you think your opinion of what makes sense carries any weight after this latest debacle is genuinely a mystery to me.

.
 
Last edited:
Pasquali's testimony

"Pasquali said that he had re-created the same conditions that were found in Romanelli's room at the time of the break-in. Pasquali said he constructed a window of the same size, with the same paint and the same type of glass, and threw the rock through it into a room with the same characteristics as Romanelli's room. Two video cameras -- one inside and one outside -- filmed the rock being thrown through the glass.
By analyzing the trajectory of the rock and the projection of the glass shards, Pasquali said he could "exclude that the glass could have been broken from the inside."
As reported by Ann Wise of ABC news.
 
Did the Incas need flying saucers to move and fashion their 100 ton stones?
Did Guede need AK and RS to help him with the murder and break-in?

The world has solved far more complex problems than this murder. The problem is how to present the solution to children.

Documentaries have convinced the masses who seem to have ADS. Perhaps the jury should also be given Ritalin.
 
Last edited:
Standing on the Ledge ? Quite a stretch, no ??

Different descriptions proffered today of the well beaten dead horse bearing the name Filomena's window and the staged break in.

Please correct me if I have any of this quoted incorrectly:

A friendly, scientific, evidence based cognizant member here this morning asks us to believe:

1) that Rudy managed to get to the window using previously You Tube enhanced multi armed suction cupped feet spiderman flying squirrel antics either by scaling smooth walls without leaving a trace, or by circus high wire hand over hand roof dangling, dangerous, dancing with the stars moves.
2) And now today, you continue that once up there, he *stands on the ledge* and breaks the window by throwing the rock from that position.

WOW, just wow.

Since autobiographical comparisons seem ever so much in vogue and uninhibited by mods, allow me to state that as a youngster, I was always amazed how the Harlem Globetrotters could pass a basketball behind their back so well.

Those best in the world pros had nothing on your 'Spiderman Lone Wolf Rudy'.

Mindful of the plethora of pictures of the broken window, in your 'argument', Rudy then 'levitated' (thanks, Steve) or perched himself, bird like, on the approx 6 inch wide windowsill with his only his tippity toes,
From this precarious position, Rudy then reached behind his back with the rock (that he effortlessly transported to these upper stories during above amazing acrobatic antics), and threw it... behind his back and between his his legs... *at what must have been ankle level* through the window.

WOW, just wow.
Quite a scenario.
Did I mis quote any iota or scintilla (thanks Curt and PR) of your 'argument' above?

Maybe this is why so few people favoring guilt bother to reply to the ceaseless, childish challenges here to 'provide a personal scenario' of certain discussed details.

I mean, really now, who could possibly compete with that one?

May I implore you to be sure to include that one on the napkin certified 'credible' TOD conclusions that you endlessly cite for the Defense team.

The story of that gymnist (sp) is certainly worthy of a complement (sp) to the member who postulated it for our perusal it today.

Edited to Add:
That very entertaining, but equally irrelevant 'crazy climbing human street monkeys' You Tube is being dragged out yet again as we speak to brush the flies off the dead horse that is being flailed yet again
 
Last edited:
pilot padron said:
Different descriptions proffered today of the well beaten dead horse bearing the name Filomena's window and the staged break in.

Please correct me if I have any of this quoted incorrectly:

A friendly, scientific, evidence based cognizant member here this morning asks us to believe:

1) that Rudy managed to get to the window using previously You Tube enhanced multi armed suction cupped feet spiderman flying squirrel antics either by wall scaling walls without leaving a trace, or by circus high wire hand over hand roof dangling, dangerous, dancing with the stars moves.
2) And now today, you continue that once up there, he *stands on the ledge* and breaks the window by throwing the rock from that position.

WOW, just wow.

Since autobiographical comparisons seem ever so much in vogue and uninhibited by mods, allow me to state that as a youngster, I was always amazed how the Harlem Globetrotters could pass a basketball behind their back so well.

Those best in the world pros had nothing on your 'Spiderman Lone Wolf Rudy'.

Mindful of the plethora of pictures of the broken window, in your 'argument', Rudy then 'levitated' (thanks, Steve) or perched himself, bird like, on the approx 6 inch wide windowsill with his only his tippity toes,
From this precarious position, Rudy then reached behind his back with the rock (that he effortlessly transported to these upper stories during above amazing acrobatic antics), and threw it... behind his back... *at what must have been ankle level* through the window.

WOW, just wow.
Quite a scenario.
Did I mis quote any iota or scintilla (thanks Curt and PR) of your 'argument' above?

Maybe this is why so few people favoring guilt bother to reply to the ceaseless, childish challenges here to 'provide a personal scenario' of certain discussed details.

I mean, really now, who could possibly compete with that one?

May I implore you to be sure to include that one on the napkin certified 'credible' TOD conclusions that you endlessly cite for the Defense team.

The story of that gymnist (sp) is certainly worthy of a complement (sp) to the member who postulated it for our perusal it today.
Click to expand...

Massei does not cite as one of his reasons for believing the break-in was staged the inability of an intruder to make the ascent and climb through the window.
 
halides1 said:
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!”
Click to expand...


They aren't equal possibilities ,on the contrary, they are most unequal as the evidence shows.

Unless you accept this [ or show otherwise - and you have already tried and failed ** ] no progress is possible and you may as well while away the time with irrelevant attempts at logic based on false premises.

** Who is responsible for the nonsense on Science Spheres which has so misled the credulous - will it be corrected ??
 
Last edited:
halides1 said:
"Pasquali said that he had re-created the same conditions that were found in Romanelli's room at the time of the break-in. Pasquali said he constructed a window of the same size, with the same paint and the same type of glass, and threw the rock through it into a room with the same characteristics as Romanelli's room. Two video cameras -- one inside and one outside -- filmed the rock being thrown through the glass.
By analyzing the trajectory of the rock and the projection of the glass shards, Pasquali said he could "exclude that the glass could have been broken from the inside."
As reported by Ann Wise of ABC news.
Click to expand...


Pasquali admitted he didn't take into account the fact that there were shutters, he didn't know there were shears on the inside of the windows, he had never been to the cottage and had never seen the window in question, in fact, his testimony turned into support the prosecutor’s theory in the end.
 
underhanded

platonov said:
They aren't equal possibilities ,on the contrary, they are most unequal as the evidence shows.
Click to expand...

platonov,

I agree that the probabilities are not equal. Pasquali refuted the proscution's case while demonstrating that the rock could have been thrown from the outside. The best that the prosecution could do was to bring up irrelevancies in a silly attempt to trip him up. The prosecution brought up the possibility of the throw being underhanded...
 
platonov said:
On the contrary Shuttlt - it wasn't at all woolly.
If you go on the explanations/understanding of the Foakers everything bar that which points to the guilt of RG is woolly/false/planted.

It was clearly established during the investigation and covered during the trial - and was probably one of the earliest indications to the cops of what they were dealing with.

Its not a minor* point - the staged break in was of probative value in the case.
* Or indeed [contrary to the befuddlement exhibited by some here earlier ] a complex one.
Click to expand...

Indeed, why stage a break-in before you know your roomate is dead?
 
halides1 said:
platonov,

I agree that the probabilities are not equal. Pasquali refuted the proscution's case while demonstrating that the rock could have been thrown from the outside. The best that the prosecution could do was to bring up irrelevancies in a silly attempt to trip him up. The prosecution brought up the possibility of the throw being underhanded...
Click to expand...



I'm afraid you cant just snip evidence you dont like as you just snipped my post. Well, you can but it doesn't work. You may as well be quoting Joe Pasquale ;)


Unless you accept this [ or show otherwise - and you have already tried and failed ** ] no progress is possible and you may as well while away the time with irrelevant attempts at logic based on false premises.

** Who is responsible for the nonsense on Science Spheres which has so misled the credulous - will it be corrected ??
 
Last edited:
platonov said:
I'm already familiar with the report - its quite easy to follow for many of us, the translators did a good job it seems.

But before you move on to pastures new - shouldn't you revisit the 'broken widow' section.

With all due respect why you think your opinion of what makes sense carries any weight after this latest debacle is genuinely a mystery to me.
.
Click to expand...

Debacle? What do you mean? I learned something about weird windows! :D

At any rate, that's best complement you could give, Platonov. As long as my idea of 'sense' is a mystery to you then I know I'm on the right track. Haven't we worked this out already? :)
 
pilot padron said:
Mindful of the plethora of pictures of the broken window, in your 'argument', Rudy then 'levitated' (thanks, Steve) or perched himself, bird like, on the approx 6 inch wide windowsill with his only his tippity toes, From this precarious position, Rudy then reached behind his back with the rock (that he effortlessly transported to these upper stories during above amazing acrobatic antics), and threw it... behind his back and between his his legs... *at what must have been ankle level* through the window.

WOW, just wow.
Quite a scenario.
...
Click to expand...

Look at some of the Inca trails that are being climbed today with regularity! I've seen plump, middle aged woman climb the precarious trails on the edge of 2000 foot precipices to the top of Machu Picchu. That's hundreds of feet along the edge of a mountain top! Climbed by middle aged men and plump middle aged women! And those are the EASY trails!

NO! Rudy’s break-in was NO mystery and NO difficult feat for a young man with low body fat. The ‘You Tube’ videos have shown clips of feats requiring much more strength and agility!

Standing on a ledge while holding via the shutter or top of the window is not a feat the possibility of which needs to even be defended let alone require the skills of Spiderman or the technology of flying saucers.

People are monkeys.
 
Last edited:
Juror said:
Massei does not cite as one of his reasons for believing the break-in was staged the inability of an intruder to make the ascent and climb through the window.
Click to expand...

The learned jurist might just credit his readers with the ability to recognize the utterly obvious *and unnecessary* ancillary detail you choose to deem significantly absent.
 
Last edited:
platonov said:
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 :)

.
Click to expand...

I posted the youtube link to make a point that is obvious - athletic young people can scale walls and overcome obstacles. You can pretend the wall at the cottage posed a special, insurmountable problem, but it's not true.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom