Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Machiavelli]

Are you claiming that a measurement of one tile is not equivalent to measuring any other tile in the cottage? If so, how do you justify using the tile measurement to subsequently measure the footprints?

I think you perfectly know that I am not claiming a difference between tiles.
But the measurement of a tile can be taken as a reference for measurements only for objects which appear in the same picture. And in the case of Rinaldi's measurement it was so.
In order to find out the size of the print and challenge Rinaldi, Vinci should have used as a unit reference something in that same picture Rinaldi used, and shown on this basis why Rinaldi's result was wrong.

 

[Justinian2]

Page 275 of “Murder in Italy”

The prosecution showed a twenty-five –minute video re-imagining of the crime, using cartoon characters as stand-ins for the three suspects (the three pigs, prosecutor Comodi called them) with the suspects’ real faces stuck on the bodies. The video showed Rudy, Raffaele, and Amanda arriving together at the cottage, pictured them teasing and taunting Meredith with the kitchen knife, and ended in a sea of red, when Amanda struck the final blow. Most disturbingly, the film used real crime scene footage and graphic images of Meredith’s body to tell the tale, even though reporters had previously been forced to leave the courtroom whenever such images were introduced into court.​

My point, made previously, is that the defense should also make use of cartoons, although with more class than those made by the prosecution. It seems to be the level of the Jury to respond favorably to cartoons. It should be assumed that the jurists have the minds of children.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/RonHendry------2.html

The second photo shows the location of the catch. To me, the way in which the glass is missing suggests that the glass on that side of the pane was likely deliberately taken out in order to facilitate access to the catch.

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

Yes but in this scenario the shutters are closed, and the scenario proposes a guy that hangs from the roof edge.
So if you are hanging from the roof you have no use anyway in having a hole in the glas soo low. You woud break the glass in the top section or in the middle, or at least break it furtherly afterwads to access the latch in the middle from a direct position.

 

[shuttlt]

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/RonHendry------2.html

The second photo shows the location of the catch. To me, the way in which the glass is missing suggests that the glass on that side of the pane was likely deliberately taken out in order to facilitate access to the catch.

Perhaps, but where the catch is the gap is too narrow to get your hand through. You would have to stick your arm through the gap lower down and reach up, surely?

 

[platonov]

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.
<snip>

You see, I don't break windows and note what happens, but I do know something about basic ballistics. It's common sense actually. .....

<snip>

<snip>


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.

<snip>

<snip>



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:

"

No Kaosium this argument is complete nonsense.

Here is what you posted again.....

The idea in the Massei Report that they staged it by going down and getting a rock, then took it upstairs and threw it out the window, then retrieved the rock and took it back upstairs is something one has to read with a smile on one's face. Oh, and they did all that after trashing the room, which is a big part of the 'proof' it was staged due to where some glass fragments were.

After I pointed out your argument was 'befuddled' or 'mistaken' you posted a link from Science Spheres which I then pointed out was also complete nonsense **

You then posted the relevant section from Massei and your argument was still nonsense.

After several more posts your argument is now that you had skipped over this section and that Massei or I or somebody else is at fault and write an essay length post to try and justify your arguments & again quoting this guy Waterbury who we have already established is not credible.

I'll repost & rephrase my ETA from the last post -- I think its good advice

Nor is it esoteric that your arguments 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 argue , as others here have done, that it was reading Massei that convinced you of innocence.

We have gone as far as we can go with this - but I suspect if you keep relying on sources like Waterbury as opposed to going to the primary documentation we shall be having similar 'debates' again and with similar outcomes.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Perhaps, but where the catch is the gap is too narrow to get your hand through. You would have to stick your arm through the gap lower down and reach up, surely?

Considering the way such a latch operates, it's enough to stick a finger or two. Perfectly doable.

EDIT: Unless you're frightened by the guillotine

 

[shuttlt]

Considering the way such a latch operates, it's enough to stick a finger or two. Perfectly doable.

You twist the little brass handle attached to the inside rim of the unbroken pane. It then turns the bar which runs along the rim, releasing the locking mechanism at the top, middle and bottom of the window. Those mechanisms are normally relatively stiff, aren't they?

 

[Katody Matrass]

You twist the little brass handle attached to the inside rim of the unbroken pane. It then turns the bar which releases the locking mechanism at the top middle and bottom of the window. Those mechanisms are normally relatively stiff, aren't they?

Au contraire. They tend to get loose when worn. And this window is not new.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Considering that Rudy stood on the grating below, his right arm went up outstretched into the window in quite a natural way, with his palm encircling the middle vertical "bar" of the window. There is no unusual gymnastics in it.

Edit: the measurements perfectly allow it too. The latch is only about 65 cm above the sill. Good night

 

[shuttlt]

The ones I've used were stiff, but I live in the UK where we don't generally have such things, so my experience is limited. Again we come to a point that depends on information we don't have. Perhaps it was lose. Does anybody have access to such a window to test how easily one can unlatch it by pushing on the central catch? I still think it's marginal if it is possible to get a couple of fingers through to unlock it in that way.

 

[shuttlt]

Considering that Rudy stood on the grating below, his arm went up outstretched into the window in quite a natural way, with his palm encircling the middle vertical "bar" of the window. There is no unusual gymnastics in it.

Doing that shortens your arm somewhat as you must bend at the elbow rather than at the wrist. Are we sure he could reach?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

it was luminol-positive

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?

lane99,

As far as I know, this sample was positive for luminol. However, in other instances where luminol was positive, Stefanoni checked with TMB and did not obtain a positive reaction (I am not sure about this stain). Both luminol and TMB are presumptive tests for blood. Unless a confirmatory test comes back positive, one cannot conclude that a substance was blood.

 

[Machiavelli]

Considering that Rudy stood on the grating below, his right arm went up outstretched into the window in quite a natural way, with his palm encircling the middle vertical "bar" of the window. There is no unusual gymnastics in it.

Edit: the measurements perfectly allow it too. The latch is only about 65 cm above the sill. Good night

This case is possible.
In this scenario, the miracle consists in not leaving any shoeprint on the soil below. Not bringing any soil inside. Not bringing any trace of grass inside.

I am not able to step in my garden without carrying soil back inside. The soild below that window was very soft, required a slight climbing on a slope. Stepping there without leaving traces is not what I would expect.

 

[Kaosium]

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....

It would seem to me that would be a good place to find forensic experts not unwilling to challenge the conclusions of the police, as I imagine they probably have to do from time to time. However when I first researching this I came across something that indicated on the DNA 'evidence' the defense wanted to call world class DNA forensics experts one by one to challenge the the prosecutions case, but that they'd been limited to only one expert per issue or something like that. Have you come across anything like that?

I think it was you who was making the argument that in the first trial the defense lawyers weren't specialized in murder cases and as such probably made some mistakes due to inexperience in the field. That strikes me as a rational proposition, but it also gives me hope that the next one will go a little better.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

DNA open letter

It would seem to me that would be a good place to find forensic experts not unwilling to challenge the conclusions of the police, as I imagine they probably have to do from time to time. However when I first researching this I came across something that indicated on the DNA 'evidence' the defense wanted to call world class DNA forensics experts one by one to challenge the the prosecutions case, but that they'd been limited to only one expert per issue or something like that. Have you come across anything like that?

kaosium,

The defense was severely hampered by the lack of full DNA disclosure in this case. However, the Johnson/Hampikian letter is an effective rebuttal of the proscution's case with respect to the knife and bra clasp.

Scroll down about halfway, and you will find a pdf file of this letter.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

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.

<snip>

Why would such a perp carefully limit such brushing to only (and precisely) one half of the window sill, and guide such brushings into the interior with such deliberation? One swipe of a forearm across the window sill would clean nearly all the glass fragments from the entire sill. Of course, this would result in a substantial amount of framents landing outside the building, below the window.

Oh, yeah. That would be inconvenient from some perspectives, wouldn't it?

 

[quadraginta]

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....

<snip>

Is it your opinion that the use of this sort of "lumping" tactic is limited only to those who fail to concede Knox's innocence?

Or are you doing a bit of "lumping" of your own?

 

[platonov]

[
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.

shutlt

Nobody involved in the case - not the cops or those on either side in court ever for a moment considered this 'theory'.

Its based on Waterbury* and Co's version - which is complete nonsense, but which Foakers who haven't read or haven't understood the primary documentation then incorporate into their arguments.

Whether it was a case of them* not understanding a basic point or just making stuff up to make the case look weak - well, who knows but this stuff, like much of the arguments and 'facts' on the break in put forward here tonight, has no bearing on the case itself whatsoever.

There is one obvious point to be made; Filomena definitely (& the stagers may have) moved stuff in the room after the window was broken.

.

 

[platonov]

If the break-in was staged then Amanda is guilty.

Based on the appeal summaries [which admittedly are not trustworthy] the defence lawyers seem to be taking the same view.

But again based on the summaries - they seem to pay very little heed to the break-in bar a general argument that RG could have broken in - he had form etc (cuts on his hands) & thats about it.

Unlike the arguments here they can't really claim the cops didn't look at the evidence - the court will be working from the 'case file' not idle and baseless supposition.
I'd be surprised if there is not a throwaway line stating that even if it was staged it still doesn't mean AK did the staging (in fact I thought that would be a bigger part of their argument)