Kaosium
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 6,695
What evidence is there she was involved in the breaking and entering?
What's the evidence she is guilty of murder?
Last edited:
Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case
- Thread starter Kevin_Lowe
- Start date
- Status
What evidence is there she was involved in the breaking and entering?
What's the evidence she is guilty of murder?
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
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.
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.
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...
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."
Here's something I'd be extremely interested in exploring:
Imagine if there had been no murder in that house that night. Imagine instead if one of the residents (let's say Knox for the sake of argument) had called the police on the morning of the 2nd to say that someone had broken in and stolen 5,000 Euro-worth of high-end laptops and other portable electronic goods. Let's suppose that the girls had contents insurance covering all the "stolen" items. As many people have pointed out, insurance companies employ specialist investigators, who work in conjunction with the police to try to determine if a claim is genuine, or if there's a demonstrable instance of insurance fraud.
My question therefore is this: what would an insurance investigator have concluded from this scene? Would (s)he have advised the insurer to pay up, or would (s)he have reported that the break-in was staged, that this was a case of suspected insurance fraud, and instructed the police to pursue criminal charges? In this instance, I personally suspect that there would have been nowhere near enough evidence of a staging to warrant a refusal to pay an insurance claim (had that been the scenario).
With all this in mind, I wonder if the defence teams have entertained the possibility of employing an insurance investigator (either a freelance currently-active one, or a recently-retired one) to give a specialised professional opinion on whether (s)he would conclude that the break-in had been staged? Just a thought....
1) The Kercher family believes Amanda Knox is "unequivocally culpable". To me that is no more surprising than is the Knox family's belief that she is "completely innocent". Under the circumstances, neither family can be expected to be objective and impartial.
Particularly in a case where, in spite of the families' opinions, the evidence and information available is about as equivocal as it could be and still be considered evidence at all.
2) On the INJUSTICE IN PERUGIA blog, someone recently stated that the sample in evidence taken from the room with the broken window was identified as a mixture of NON-BLOOD dna's contributed by both Knox and Miss Kercher.
Is that right?? I had been under the impression that sample was Knox's non-blood DNA, mixed with the victim's BLOOD? Is that not correct?
Particularly in a case where, in spite of the families' opinions, the evidence and information available is about as equivocal as it could be and still be considered evidence at all.
2) On the INJUSTICE IN PERUGIA blog, someone recently stated that the sample in evidence taken from the room with the broken window was identified as a mixture of NON-BLOOD dna's contributed by both Knox and Miss Kercher.
Is that right?? I had been under the impression that sample was Knox's non-blood DNA, mixed with the victim's BLOOD? Is that not correct?
[
I disagree about the cone, to my mind the inner shutter confuses the trajectory. Having said that I don't see the glass traveling so far into the room from a rock thrown from the inside. Still, since it's a fake breaking, the lockation of the glass cold in part be artificial. I'm not altogether comfortable with this as a solution, but it's possible, and I think it's better than the alternative of them running outside to retrieve the rock.
Kaosium
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 6,695
Not if the difference is a ninety degree angle. I didn't get this part before at all. I didn't study the window or anything, that part didn't interest me. Just so I have this straight: they're saying they pulled the inner shutters and the window to something akin to a ninety degree angle, closed the outer shutters and threw the rock through?
It's not 'infinite', it will have to follow a discernible pattern of some sort. It can't change direction midflight, or turn corners, and while one could never predict with absolute precision how it would all come out, it must still follow the laws of physics. It's not going to be entirely random, how could that make sense? How could you get glass to fly roughly ninety degrees all the way out to the bed?
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
For what it's worth, I don't even think that if the break-in were proven to have been staged, that this in itself would necessarily constitute Knox's guilt in respect to the murder.
Now, many people have scoffed loudly - and sarcastically - at the idea of Guede staging the burglary (usually along the lines of: "Oh yeah, a man with some prior history of B&E stages a B&E in order to divert police attention away from him? Yeah that's likely! Huh huh huh etc".) However, as I and others have pointed out before, if Guede committed this crime alone, and if he were let into the house by Meredith, then there's actually a decent rationale for him to subsequently stage a break-in.
And the reason is this: If Guede had left the house via the front door, he could quickly realise that the police would reason (correctly) that her attacker was either waiting for her when she got home and rushed her as she opened the door (unlikely), or her attacker was known to her and she let him in (much more likely).
The universe of men who a) were known to Meredith to the extent that she'd open the front door to them (while she was alone in the house) and b) were in Perugia that night, was fairly small. I'd hazard a guess that it might come down to about 30 men maximum, and Guede would have known that even that small number would be quickly whittled down by solid alibis. However, if Guede were to stage a B&E, he'd instantly expand the potential universe to a much larger group of men.Even though Guede would obviously know that he fell into the category of "men in Perugia with previous form of B&E", he'd know that the police would be forced to cast their net far wider - including all known sex offenders and people with mental health issues etc.
In any case, I think the whole area is likely to be moot, since I think there's next to no good evidence that the break-in actually was staged. It would only be relevant if somehow the prosecutors could show that the break-in was most likely to have been staged - and I believe that they are a very long way indeed from reaching that point.
Kaosium
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 6,695
He didn't want to break his hammer? I figure he'd just throw a rock up there, break the window, then wait and see if anyone noticed.
Kaosium,
By the way, do you think the Steve Moore and Dr Waterbury thing is important. I confess I don't altogether share your opinion. Dr Waterbury certainly has a bunch of good material on his site, but he also seems to me to be invested in the case and some of his posts seem other than objective. As for Steve Moore,
it's quotes like this that make me wonder whether he isn't just going on the basis of a summary somebody has given him rather than having actually looked into the case:
8 hours? When? Not the night she confessed, or whatever... not unless you count all the time she was at the police station as an interrogation. Without food and water...? No... she just didn't have snack breaks in the middle of being interrogated. She can't have been hungry.
I'm a nut for getting this stuff right, and particularly with the interrogation, people just make stuff up.
Also, he says "Without being allowed a lawyer". He is taking the claims of the defendant as a fact. Strip out the claims and replace them with stuff that can actually be demonstrated and you don't have an article.
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/FBI7.html
Perhaps you have a better example of his writing on the case, in which case I'll gladly revise my opinion.
[To be fair the lawyer thing was still being hotly argued when I was last involved in a debate on this... the whole "what constitutes being an official suspect" issue. Was there ever a definitive conclusion?]
By the way, do you think the Steve Moore and Dr Waterbury thing is important. I confess I don't altogether share your opinion. Dr Waterbury certainly has a bunch of good material on his site, but he also seems to me to be invested in the case and some of his posts seem other than objective. As for Steve Moore,
it's quotes like this that make me wonder whether he isn't just going on the basis of a summary somebody has given him rather than having actually looked into the case:
8 hours? When? Not the night she confessed, or whatever... not unless you count all the time she was at the police station as an interrogation. Without food and water...? No... she just didn't have snack breaks in the middle of being interrogated. She can't have been hungry.
I'm a nut for getting this stuff right, and particularly with the interrogation, people just make stuff up.
Also, he says "Without being allowed a lawyer". He is taking the claims of the defendant as a fact. Strip out the claims and replace them with stuff that can actually be demonstrated and you don't have an article.
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/FBI7.html
Perhaps you have a better example of his writing on the case, in which case I'll gladly revise my opinion.
[To be fair the lawyer thing was still being hotly argued when I was last involved in a debate on this... the whole "what constitutes being an official suspect" issue. Was there ever a definitive conclusion?]
Last edited:
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
I think that most of the glass that was further into Filomena's room might well have got there as a result of being swept, kicked or thrown into the room by whoever broke in. Analysis of the broken window pane suggests that the initial impact by the rock caused a hole not much larger than the profile of the rock, and also caused multiple cracks and fractures of the glass. It then looks as though more glass was removed from the pane manually, in order to enlarge the hole enough to reach inside and unlatch the window.
I think therefore that it's very possible that the perpetrator 1) lobbed the rock through; 2) climbed up; 3) enlarged the hole quickly, using a gloved hand, throwing the removed glass into the room; 4) unlatched the window; 5) brushed or kicked off most of the small sharp shards of glass on the interior part of the sill as he entered the room.
Two other points about the window glass: a small piece of glass was found in Meredith's room, either close to or underneath her body. IIRC the prosecution tried at one point to claim that a drinking glass was broken, but this appears to have been refuted. It's most likely that the glass came from the broken window pane. This means, of course, that someone went into Meredith's room after having been in Filomena's room once the widow had been broken. I believe that Guede had some glass stuck in a fold of his coat, trousers or shoes, and that it became dislodged during the struggle with Meredith. This, to me is a far more possible explanation than that either Knox or Sollecito returned to Meredith's room after the staging, and either deliberately or inadvertently deposited a piece of the window glass amongst the murder scene.
And secondly, it's been fairly well-documented that when a thin pane of glass is struck at low velocity by a blunt object, the glass dispersal is either in the direction of impact or vertically downwards - with the exception of a very small amount of spray-back of tiny (<1mm) glass particles. Filomena's windowsill was easily wide enough to catch the pieces which fell vertically down - and they're visible in all the crime-scene photos. I don't believe that the police ever conducted a thorough enough search of the ground below the window to establish the presence (pr otherwise) of tiny glass particles. It looks like they did a cursory search from eye level, then used the area for smoking and making phone calls......
pilot padron
Muse
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2010
- Messages
- 690
Next to no good evidence...Indeed
Surely you jest.
Or possibly you are worried that so few read what you opine here that you are just 'testing' us, the unwashed masses.
Any rational being superficially familiar with the case is cognizant of the *fact* that the jury found enough evidence to *unanimously* convict her of horrifically murdering Meredith and ...drumroll...staging a break in. for which she received an additional sentence
The distinguished presiding judge then laboriously spent 3 months detailing the reasons for this unanimity in a 427 page report.
In light of these *facts* your unsubstantiated *opinion* about 'next to no good evidence' seems pitifully based on little except pride, prejudice and self glorification.
Surely you jest.
Or possibly you are worried that so few read what you opine here that you are just 'testing' us, the unwashed masses.
Any rational being superficially familiar with the case is cognizant of the *fact* that the jury found enough evidence to *unanimously* convict her of horrifically murdering Meredith and ...drumroll...staging a break in. for which she received an additional sentence
The distinguished presiding judge then laboriously spent 3 months detailing the reasons for this unanimity in a 427 page report.
In light of these *facts* your unsubstantiated *opinion* about 'next to no good evidence' seems pitifully based on little except pride, prejudice and self glorification.
Last edited:
I'm happy to go with that. It goes a long way to unifying both theories.
If it's anything but totally trivial to tell the difference between glass from a glass and glass from a window then I have been totally lied to by CSI.
Hard to know, if the glass is from the window and Knox and Sollecito did the staging, what the odds are of them tramping a bit of glass back again. Did they break the window before, or after the other bits of the staging? [I guess the answer to that is tied up in them being barefoot at some point]
Last edited:
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
I share your feeling that Steve Moore has probably allowed himself to be carried away somewhat by hyperbole, and also that there are some people who have allowed their steadfast belief in Knox's/Sollecito's innocence to cloud their thinking. But I think that some of what Moore (and others) say has some validity, and that it's possible to separate the wheat from the chaff to a certain degree. I also think that each of us has a subtly different take on the whole case - although it's interesting (and illuminating) that those who believe in Knox's/Sollecito's guilt continually try to lump all the "innocentisti" together into a homogenous group. In their analysis, if for example one person on the "innocence" side (for want of a better term) gets something wrong or oversteps the mark, then all innocentisti are tarnished; or they will try to claim that Steve Moore or Anne Bremner (or whoever) are somehow representing the general viewpoint of the innocentisti....
For what it's worth, my personal take is that there was in no way a sufficient case presented in the first trial to convict Knox and Sollecito beyond a reasonable doubt. I've tried - with limited success - to explain that this needn't necessarily mean that I don't think they were involved. Rather, it means that I don't think the prosecution offered sufficient evidence to convict, and that I think the first court's reasoning was faulty. As it happens, I now lean quite strongly towards a belief that Knox and Sollecito didn't have anything to do with the crime (or its aftermath), but I remain open to changing my mind if I find strong arguments in favour of their guilt. I have zero emotional investment in the case - other than finding the debate to be usually interesting and informative. And of course a part of me would take a grain of satisfaction in being shown to be right, but I think everyone would admit to that if they were honest...
Kaosium
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 6,695
The latter part there was probably guys like me trying to puzzle out that strange prose and giving up and sneaking down to that juicy morsel about 'stone throwing experts.'
As for the latter, of course in that case it would be deflected and probably fall, but it wouldn't go ninety degrees sideways in my view. I guess I never gave it much thought before today. I've been more interested in other topics than the break-in.
Last edited:
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
You still don't seem to understand that if every court's rulings were sacrosanct and inviolate, there would never have been a miscarriage of justice in modern history. I (and others) believe that the judges in the first trial applied faulty reasoning and came to the wrong verdict. This applies in part to the court's "reasoning" in how it concluded that the break-in was staged.
PS Your post starts and concludes with a personal attack. Please don't do it again.
Last edited:
Machiavelli
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2010
- Messages
- 5,844
I see the problem not in terms of insormontable obstacle. But it is about making an hypothesys of how to climb or enter through the window, than make assesment about these hypothesys, how feasible it is in the specific hase and how consistent. By watching a video like the one you posted we have an immediate picture of specific points of the scenario that don't fit with our case.
I see them as follows:
1. Measurements don't fit. The same handle as the guy in the video cannot be done on this window. For this swinging maneuver the man would need a foot ledge (the window sill) but also needs to hold himself to an upper frame. In the video, the church portal arch is close enough to the foothold. But the cottage roof is too distant from the window sill. The roof edge looms 260-280 cm above the window sill. This stretch is too long for a human body in order to be kept and too long to allow any further operation. I hope you see the two points of holding are too distant for a person to hold on one with one hand and reach and operate in the other with the other hand. A person in this position cannot balance on the sill with his feet as long as he holds, cannot hold with his hands on the roof if he balances on his foot, cannot crouch or kneel without leave the handhold, cannot stick an arm through the broken pane and unlatch the window.
I agree that no sane person albeit athletic would put himself in this position to perform a delicate job. Any burglar would walk around the house and try the easiest ways in first: check that all lights inside are off, ring to see if there is nobody in, kick the door or climb thought the balcony and thought the kitchen window. This break in would be extremely simple if done without swinging from the roof.
2. Use of the rock inconsistent with this style of entry. Once the person is balancing with his feet on the window sill, the window pane could be broken with a kick. This position would make the rock useless. Even more, it would make a big rock useless. The inertial force of this big rock would make sense only if used, which means do a movement that allows to give some velocity to the stone. In that position the big rock would be useless and cumbersome. And there would be no reason for breaking the window on such a lower position.
3. Shutters closed. Once you hang from the roof edge, to balance on the sill with your feet - and maybe to break the glass with a kick - you must have the shutters open. The shutters of Filomena’s window were closed. Albeit not completely latched, they did not leave room to balance on with your feet. It s necessary to open the shutters before you can put your feet on the ledge.
4. Unusual profile of athletic training required. This video shows people who train every day for hours. Their performance is not average, is not normal. The swinging from the roof on a ledge is certainly possible, as long as distances between holds are compatible with the size of human body. In this case, besides one excessive distance between handholds, there is also to consider that even with suitable points of hold this would be anyway unusual. Not the most frequent modus operandi of a burglar, not the average way of entry you would expect, and it is something the great majority of people would not be able to do in total safety.
Last edited:
Katody Matrass
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,119
Machiavelli, in view of the ongoing discussion I just realized that your extensive list of arguments in favor of the staging lacks this one:
"glass spray pattern shows the window was broken from the inside"
I guess it means you believe the rock was thrown from the outside?I dealt with some of your arguments so far, and from a quick look through the rest of them I got that the incredulity they convey is not very strong. So let me go through it quickly to not leave any unanswered.
I already pointed out why there was no tossing clothes on the floor.
I think first thing Rudy did after getting in and getting cought by the dangling TV cable was pulling in the shutters behind him. Then he looked around to make sure if he's alone. I don't know why you think he didn't searched the drawers. Maybe it's confidential evidence again, but I must work with what is available. I vaguely remember that Laura's drawers were left half open. And didn't some Meredith's money went missing, too?
IIRC the Nov 1 was a dry night and the patch of ground below the window was covered with dry vegetation and fallen leaves. So no grass or soil. Instead there are traces of light powdery substance (whitewash?) on the pieces of clothing that look stepped on:
http://injusticeinperugia.com/rh88.JPG
http://injusticeinperugia.com/rh89.JPG
I don't know how you arrived at the 145 cm distance, but I think it's a bit exaggerated. The window is 80 cm wide, you can work from it to get a better estimate. That shutters were closed is disputed. Filomena was unsure about it, and apparently testified that she left one of them open. Rudy in his conversation said they were open, too.
Some traces of possible blood with black hair were found on the window. See the relation from court quoted not long ago. Alas, whoever was it who handled the rock and the window, he was not identified. As for the stepping of glass, I don't know what your source is, but some of it looks stepped on. I don't know if any tests were done on it or if it can be determined at all.
The distance from the window sill to the latch is 65 cm:
http://injusticeinperugia.com/104.JPG
From the topmost bar of the grating to the window sill it is around 150 cm.
http://injusticeinperugia.com/118.jpg
Standing on it, Rudy had his armpits above the sill. No need to balance. With outstretched arm he could easily reach and remove a few loose glass shards and then flick the latch. Glass falls like guillotine only in the movies. Remember that scary policewoman who broke the big glass door with her leg? She has her head, legs and arms still in place.
I don't know how from a glass fragment you can determine direction that someone walked. Anyway, strange argument, I don't know how it would help the staging theory.
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,573
I shutter to think
Sherlock,
My reading of this passage is that by not "taking into account" the shutters, he did not try to simulate the break-in with the shutters closed. It is difficult to see how the glass would fly in the same way if the rock were thrown from the inside as it would fly if the rock were thrown from the outside.
Sherlock,
My reading of this passage is that by not "taking into account" the shutters, he did not try to simulate the break-in with the shutters closed. It is difficult to see how the glass would fly in the same way if the rock were thrown from the inside as it would fly if the rock were thrown from the outside.
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
Just a quick rebuttal to this particular point: there's a very good reason why a person breaking and entering would prefer to throw a rock rather than kick in the window while hanging from the roof. The perpetrator would have most likely cased the house to check - to the best of his knowledge - that it was empty. However, he couldn't be certain of that - perhaps someone was having a very early night in and had already turned their light off and gone to sleep. In addition, he couldn't tell with any certainty what the sensitivity to breaking glass might be of the people in the nearby apartments, or of any passers-by that he hadn't noticed.
Therefore, it's far smarter to throw a rock through the window, then immediately retreat to the shadows and see what happens. If no lights or noise emerge from inside the house, and if no concerned neighbours or passers-by are seen to react to the noise, then the coast is most likely clear. Conversely, if there is a reaction to the breaking glass - either from within or outside the house - the perp has ample opportunity to either hide or flee.
Clearly, if the perp is hanging from the ceiling when the glass is smashed, he is in a potentially far more compromising position if the noise alerts someone inside or near to the house.
The latch looks tough to reach. I recall pro-guilt people did some maths and claimed it couldn't be done. Doubtless somebody else has, or can do, some calculations and show it can. The latch is protected by the narrow part of the broken glass, so you'd have to stick you arm all the way through and reach up.
- Status