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.
Do you know what you actually accomplished? You taught me something. I thank you for it. You filled in a crucial piece of information I must have skipped reading this thread initially as when the break-in usually comes up the main thing argued is the 'impossibility' of getting into that window. One look at that picture and I knew that was silly, so I skipped a lot of that.
I've already made the argument several times - you naturally don't want to accept it.
You know what's funny? I don't even have any proof what you said about that window is
true, but I accept it as it
makes sense of something that was heretofore incomprehensible to me. I couldn't get what they were talking about there, but now I do. Along with the context provided by Halides, Sherlock Holmes and Juror, I now understand what the issue is here and just why it is definite that rock came from the outside and they tried to conceal that in court and Massei waved his magic wand and tried obfuscate it in his report.
You see, I don't break windows and note what happens, but I do know something about basic ballistics. It's common sense actually. If that rock had come from the direction they tried to pretend it did, there'd be a dispersal pattern, probably in a wide cone shape, more or less matching the trajectory of where it hit the window. Oh, there would be some scatter here and there outside that, and some would fall straight down I'd guess, but the majority of it that separated from the frame would be within that perimeter.
Now, if it had actually come from the direction the prosecution tried to pretend, they wouldn't be asking irrelevant questions of the defense expert and cherry-picking juicy generalizations, they'd have
their own ballistics engineer up there explaining in small words so everyone can understand just how obvious it is that if you hit a window with an object most of the debris is going to go in a pattern fully compatible with the laws of physics away from the impact, in this case blasting all the way out to the carpet and the bed. It's will be a completely different dispersal pattern if the window was spun on its axis is 90 degrees or whatever it was. It will be pretty easy to tell, try it at home if you don't believe Dr. Mark Waterbury or a professional forensics engineer like Ron Hendry.
Instead they decided on confusing nonsense about the shutters to hide the fact the window wasn't in the position they say it was, and to explain the amount of glass that ended up right where you'd expect it if the window was right where it ought to have been. I can just guess there's all sorts of glass missing right in front of where they said the window was when it was hit, and it was very cute to pretend the inner shutters deflected much of it because the window was pulled in, which is part of the 'hand wave' they hide with "here we have an infinity of possible variations."
They're trying to pretend that means the laws of physics are temporarily suspended in Perugia, Italy, and no one can tell you what happens when a stone hits a glass window
in a general sense. That's silly, there may be infinite variations of how the glass cracks and scatters, but anyone should know the majority of it is going to go away from the impact, and the shutters can't shield it all.
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.The fact you came to this case with that faith-like certainty based on unreason is why reason alone cant shift it.
Actually, I didn't. I wanted to find out something that had puzzled me when I was sitting in a crappy motel between Buffalo and Rochester that had no remote and I happened to see a report on Amanda Knox getting a slander charge filed on her. I figured she was guilty--though I hadn't paid any attention to it at all--I just didn't get what the deal was with filing a charge like that when there were no tapes to prove it one way or another. Plus being in a crappy motel in upstate New York with no remote you make your own fun. They did have Wifi...
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.
Platonov, did you know there are environments where they employ something called 'negative reinforcement' in order to motivate people? They just insult people and berate them and in turn it compels them to learn faster and not get discouraged easily. I know there's probably an error in my theory above, and I'd like you to find it and let me know in no uncertain terms just what it is. You have been very helpful in helping me come to better understanding of this case today, usually we just go in circles and have fun.
At any rate, do you know why guys like Steve Moore, 25 year veteran of the FBI doesn't care about the esoteric details of 'theory' in the Massei report? I can guess, it's because someone who really knows how to read a confined murder scene like that bedroom can just study it and realize the evidence collected more or less proves there couldn't have been three people in there. He actually
knows something about this, and no amount of ad hominem, pedantry or semantics discredits that knowledge.
Or that Dr. Mark Waterbury didn't bother to figure out just what that confusing morass meant about the shutters and how the rock was employed? Because he knows it's
nonsense. The fantasies constructed by the court and Massei to try to twist the evidence that clearly points to something else are for entertainment purposes only. Here's what he knows:
"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. But you don’t have to believe us, because this is a very simple thing. Ask any kid who has just hit a baseball through a window which way the broken glass flew. All that broken glass spread all over Filomena’s room got there because the rock was thrown from the outside. It’s that simple."
RS's computer which was in use up till 9.10 with the damaged pc's which form no part of any posible alibi.
