No, I don't consider it consistent because the (first) 13 points I made remain still to me. (I have also another 3 or 4 points in addition).
Hello,
Machiavelli! I believe I answered all of your points. If you think I was wrong somewhere, feel free to point it out. E.g. what is wrong with the window measurements and possible ways to open it end enter?
I assumed you quietly accepted most of my points so far. If it's not the fact, I'd love to see where I'm wrong.
The question of incredulty and inconsistency i see it as total difference. I don't see any distinct definition by which you should dismiss my "incredulty" and not consider thay depend from aspects of reality that lack consistency.
By consistent I meant simply that every piece of evidence is taken into account by my hypothetical scenario, nothing is left out that would logically contradict it. I also think that every aspect of my hypothesis is probable, but probability is more subjective, while logical consistency is objective.
In guilt theories OTOH there are inconsistencies, like failure to incorporate the objective evidence of Meredith's phone activity.
I don't see in fact any reason why I should credulous or dupe, open to accept any sequence of improbable scenarios and do as if this belief was perfectly normal. It is not normal to believe an undeterminate series of unrealisic events.
What you said above is in fact beautiful, as it exactly explains my problem with the guilt theory. Other problem is that no one so far presented a comprehensive series of events, however unrealistic they may be, without leaving out some of the evidence.
As to my sequence of entering the window, I don't think any element of it is improbable on itself. We have arrived at a conclusion that climbing that wall is perfectly feasible, opening the window is easy, there are powdery traces that although not tested very well fit the scenario of climbing that wall.
Others pointed out traces on the wall like scuff marks and missing nails that were overlooked by ILE, but very well could be connected with the break in.
Those observations that might be interpreted differently - like for example the white crumble of varnishing in place of whitewash - are also independant from each other.
I'm not sure what you mean by it.
I have intrinsic reasons for each point, reasons that do not depend from my idea that the defendants are guilty (albeit I have this idea also independently from the issue of Filomena's window). I take in account that some of these conclusions regarding a single piece could have a more or less reasonable chance to be a wrong assessment. But I am not ready to consider as reasonable that all conclusions are wrong on all elements.
Some of your elements constitute necessary conditions. It's enough that the powdery white tracks come from the external wall, and the break in is proven to be real. So it's sufficient for you to be wrong on that one element.
It is the accumulation of elements that creates a critical mass. And reasonable doubt on proving single parts of the scenario - like the staged break in - are not even needed.
Yes, but it works the other way, too. There are elements forming "critical mass" and they indicate miscarriage of justice.
But we can also point out the elements in favor of the real break in.
1. Distribution of glass only possible when the rock came from the outside.
2. Rock position indicate throwing from the outside.
3. Traces indicating someone climbed the wall and through the window.
4. Evidence that someone snagged the TV cable going under the window - presumably when stepping into the room.
5. Someone cleared parts of the window frame from shards, to access the latch.
6. The window is perfect target for a rock throw. It is possible one of the shutters were left open by Filomena, as she testified once.
7. The window is on the side of the building not illuminated be the street lights, it is hidden from sight by the trees.
etc. etc.
(Then come the points about other break-ins Rudy was connected with)
It's interesting how the real break in element influences that "critical mass", there's important difference here.
The
real break-in is a
sufficient condition for AK and RS
innocence. If the break-in is real, there is no way you can incorporate AK and RS into the crime.
Some objections, moreover, are totally inconsistent in my view, like the idea that Filomena window could be a "logical" point of entry on the arguments you brought forward. Or that the sweater fell from the top of the paper bag. I don't see these arguments about the staged break in as disproven.
I see we have at least two points to discuss further, I will get back to them and I hope we will clarify them soon.
About inconsistencies, I have never seen and cannot imagine somebody trying to put together the inconsistencies I see in Amanda's declarations, for example.
That's interesting and I'd love to discuss that inconsistencies, too. For me her declarations are consistent with innocent person targeted by police.
I think all these claims about false memory and coercion fail to explain the actual facts and are inconsistent on so macroscopical and diffuse level that, to me, gullibility on these stuttering attempts goes beyond belief.
It would be great if you could list those macro inconsistencies. That's something I saw many colpevolisti were asked about repeatedly.
The lack of possible explanation for the luminol footprints is also devastating, as well as the lack of any reasonable explanation for the bra clasp, and the evidence of cleanup and alteration of the bathmat print, and the features of the bathmat print bring a further element against.
That's another topic we disagree on that we can revisit, too.
