Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris_Halkides]

more on Pasquali's testimony from Frank

Sherlock,

At Perugia-Shock Frank reported, "He noticed that the impact of the rock broke the wood of the frame, removed the dye, and pushed pieces of glass into the wood of the blind. And that the fragments of glass following the explosion of the window were spread in the whole room. All elements compatible only with the speed and the direction of a rock thrown from outside."

Mr. Sfarzo discussed the strengths and weaknesses of Mr. Pasquali's presentation and he concluded, "The consultant tried. The prosecution tried. The truth is that neither of the hipotesys about the break-in can be proven." I suggest each person read his article and come to his or her own conclusion.

 

[Matthew Best]

Hey, don't you owe me 16 bob ? I haven't forgotten about that.

On the contrary I think you'll find that it is you who owes me 80p.

Don't worry, I'll not be pursuing you (or the infamous "broken widow", whoever she may turn out to be) through the courts for it.

.

and, for good luck:

.

 

[platonov]

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.

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

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?

I'm afraid you have misinterpreted (my) prose yet again.

I have a certain notion of what does & doesn't make sense to you - I have already looked at the arguments of other Foakers [ Kevin Lowe, Kestrel etc already made the same mistake you did ]

Its the Forrest Gump confidence with which you make further pronouncements on Massei or whatever, as if I [or others] will accept them as having any validity, that I don't understand.

Even if you still haven't learned from the many earlier mistakes what makes you think others haven't drawn conclusions.

London John and others have this sense also - every day is a new day ; making ridiculous arguments doesn't affect how future arguments on the same topic will be recd' - doesn't work like that I'm afraid.
Everyone is entitled to make a mistake or two but eventually ..............

.

 

[platonov]

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.

You can pretend thats the point but its not true

 

[Kaosium]

I'm afraid you have misinterpreted (my) prose yet again.

I have a certain notion of what does & doesn't make sense to you - I have already looked at the arguments of other Foakers [ Kevin Lowe, Kestrel etc already made the same mistake you did ]

Its the Forrest Gump confidence with which you make further pronouncements on Massei or whatever, as if I [or others] will accept them as having any validity, that I don't understand.

Even if you still haven't learned from the many earlier mistakes what makes you think others haven't drawn conclusions.

London John and others have this sense also - every day is a new day ; making ridiculous arguments doesn't affect how future arguments on the same topic will be recd' - doesn't work like that I'm afraid.
Everyone is entitle to make a mistake or two but eventually ..............

.

Platonov, pedantry is when you find one small error or misjudgment in an argument and then crow about it like the little boy who made a mess in the toilet and wants everyone to come see. It isn't an argument, it isn't indicative of anything, it's irrelevant.

Now, do you recall where we started? I asked you to make an argument for a change. Let us see you do it, about something outside the esoteric that actually matters.

What do you believe is evidence that Raffaele and Amanda were involved in this murder?

 

[platonov]

Platonov, pedantry is when you find one small error or misjudgment in an argument and then crow about it like the little boy who made a mess in the toilet and wants everyone to come see. It isn't an argument, it isn't indicative of anything, it's irrelevant.

Now, do you recall where we started? I asked you to make an argument for a change. Let us see you do it, about something outside the esoteric that actually matters.

What do you believe is evidence that Raffaele and Amanda were involved in this murder?

Ha

No, we started with me pointing out yet again that you had failed to understand a very basic point about this case - in fact one so basic it beggars belief.

I've already made this argument several times - you naturally don't want to accept it.

The evidence for guilt is straightforward - the fact that you fail to or dont want to accept it is not the fault of the evidence - as your failure after even 2 attempts to understand the 'broken window' is not the fault* of Massei or anybody else ; a child could have figured it out in seconds.

* Even after the error is pointed out you want to blame somebody else for your misunderstanding and carry on blithely as if everybody else is stupid.
Everybody is entitled to an opinion - but not all opinions are equally valid.

ETA Nor is it esoteric that you are relying on sources that are either deliberately false or else written by someone so incredibly stupid they cant understand simple parts of the Massei report - And that on this basis you repeatedly claim, as others here have done, that it was reading Masse that convinced you of innocence.

This is far form esoteric -- Perhaps you should read it again instead of relying on secondhand sources.

.

 

[Justinian2]

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.

Just ask for the source. Freshmen in high school write like that in an effort to impress or pretend to be smarter than they are.

To an overweight and non-athletic person like Massei, the break-in might have seemed beyond human ability. The break-in would clearly have been beyond the ability of Massei. The argument that if Massei couldn't do it, then nobody could is not valid.

Nobody should believe the break-in was beyond Guede's ability.

 

[Kestrel]

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.

On what planet does an open window shutter get in the way of a thrown rock?

Remember that the shutter on Filomena's window didn't close properly and could not be latched. Filomena wasn't even certain she had closed that shutter. Even if it had been closed, it would not have been hard for someone to open it again.

 

[Matthew Best]

Here it is again - your (pl) inability to follow simple arguments or interpret simple text is why you are still convinced that AK is innocent.

Says the man who can't keep track of a simple wager.

Not that I'm expecting you pay up that 80p you owe me.

[Hey - this highlighting is fun and easy, isn't it?]

.

.

 

[Juror]

Just ask for the source. Freshmen in high school write like that in an effort to impress or pretend to be smarter than they are.

To an overweight and non-athletic person like Massei, the break-in might have seemed beyond human ability. The break-in would clearly have been beyond the ability of Massei. The argument that if Massei couldn't do it, then nobody could is not valid.

Nobody should believe the break-in was beyond Guede's ability.

Massei doesn't - that was my point. He gives lots of reasons for believing the break-in was staged but the inability of the intruder to climb the wall was not mentioned. In fact Massei discusses various scenarios in which the intruder would have had to make the ascent (climb up - open shutters - climb down - throw rock - climb back up...) but dismisses those for other reasons.

My understanding of pilot pardon's comment was it is so obvious someone could not climb through the window, Massei would be just stating something that is self-evident and thus unnecessary. (pilot pardon - please correct me if I am wrong on your point).

 

[TomCH]

Come on Stilicho, Machiavelli, Fine, Treehorn, Alt-F4, Odeed, Solange305, CapeAladin, Platonov, Pilot Padron, Fulcanelli, and whomever else I have forgotten:
Just ask your doctor.

What doctor would that be?

I'm not chronically sick, so why would I have my own doctor?

 

[Fine]

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.

_________________

Charlie,

I was addressing the issue of climbing the wall below Filomena's window. Not swinging to her window. Here's a photograph of the wall you would have Rudy swing across, with his hands on the roof tiles, swinging till his feet come to rest on the window ledge, the window ledge twelve feet above the ground. Even if this action is do-able, what sane person would attempt this, before first trying to kick in the front door? Did Rudy have suicidal tendancies?

///

 

[shuttlt]

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!”

Halides,

I'm glad you brought up lesswrong. I tried to enter into the discussion on that site ages ago, but it seemed to be unspeakably slow. I recall my impression at the time was that the argument was hopelessly flawed. If you're interested in discussing it, I'll refresh my memory. It is at least a somewhat new line of discussion on this thread I think.

 

[TomCH]

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?

Because, one would obviously toss it from the outside of the glass, and the rock would hit the interior shutters!

Simple, to do, just open the window, and throw the rock from within the room at the window!

You do realize that the windows (and interior shutters) open inward, don't you?

 

[TomCH]

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

Virtually ALL windows in Europe open inward!

Only American windows slide up/down.

 

[shuttlt]

Am I correct in recalling that any swinging about has to be done with gloves on to avoid fingerprints?

 

[TomCH]

My theory might require that the shutter be strong enough to hold Guede's weight.
Is the shutter strong? Are the hinges strong enough?

No, they are quit weak.

They are not designed to support much weight.

 

[shuttlt]

I don't recall ever having seen an explanation of why he didn't break into the downstairs apartment, which surely would have been easier. Is it because he was friendly with the boys who lived there, or that he has a Spiderman fixation?

 

[TomCH]

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.

Wait.

In Milano he reportedly had a glass hammer, so why on earth would he carry a large rock while free climbing a wall, instead of just having a glass hammer in his pocket?

 

[shuttlt]

No, they are quit weak.

Is this based on an observation of the shutter hinges, or shutter hinges in general?