Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

Indeed she is scared.
This is logically understandable. What is not understandable, is how it happens that she remembers things. And how she suddenty recovers confidence in a clean memory, on some unspecified, and not declared, later moment.


I think the original quote is this:
(I just highlighted the time connectors indicating the order of events)


<<Allora durante l’interrogazione c’erano tutte le persone attorno a me davanti indietro così, e qualcuno urlava da qua, una persona diceva “no, no, no, forse non ricordi qua” un altro urlava con questo qua e poi c’era una poliziotta dietro di me che mi ha fatto così.

Dif. (Avv. Ghirga): una volta due volte...?

Imputata: due volte la prima volta, ho fatto così e abbiamo girato verso di lei e poi mi ha fatto un’altra.

Dif. (Avv. Ghirga): quando poi tu hai avuto il colloquio racconti va bene questo lo hai detto, poi tu hai una crisi di pianto , poi ti viene portato qualche the qualche caffé, qualche pasticcino, qualcosa, quando avviene, se lo precisi meglio.

Imputata: loro mi hanno portato delle cose soltanto dopo che ho fatto dichiarazioni, quindi stavo là, loro stavano urlando a me e io volevo soltanto andare via perché pensavo che mia mamma arrivava e quindi ho detto guarda posso avere il mio telefono perché voglio chiamare la mia mamma” hanno detto di no e poi c’era tutto questo casino, mi urlavano, mi dicevano che, mi minacciavano, proprio poi era soltanto dopo che ho fatto la dichiarazione che aveva detto, “no, no, no, non ti preoccupare ti proteggiamo dai” così è venuto.>>

[note: Amanda avoids to answer, fails be more precise compared to the lawyer's proposed order]

<<Allora prima che loro mi hanno chiesto di fare altre dichiarazione, non posso dire il tempo perché ora ho orrore delle stesse cose , ma a un certo punto io ho chiesto “ ma non dovrei avere un avvocato a questo punto o no” perché non sapevo veramente, perché io ho pensato che ho visto degli show di televisione che di solito quando si fa queste cose si ha un avvocato, ma ok dovrei averlo, e loro mi hanno detto almeno uno, mi ha detto che sarebbe stato peggiore per me, perché dimostrava che non volevo collaborare con la polizia, quindi ho detto di no.>>

Note the word altre, meaning she made more than one declaration. Assuming this narrative is chronological, we are now able to distinguish the two declarations she refers to on the timeline. This prima che .. altre is located before the 05:45 declaration. But apparently, after the "tea and pastries" that was described in the previous part along with Ghirga's suggestion.

Yes, I believe she is saying that they fed her after her first declaration and asked her to make a second declaration.

 

[platonov]

People already have.

platonov,

My advice to you is that you stop digging. Making unsubstantiated claims about some source being dodgy is not helpful to your case. I am happy if anyone wants to go back to page 400 and read for himself or herself what I said. Now, if you will excuse me, I have better things to do.

halides1

I don't dig - I shovel

Also I tend to link to the original posts [I find it helps] - as opposed to merely repeating claims.

 

[katy_did]

Note the word altre, meaning she made more than one declaration. Assuming this narrative is chronological, we are now able to distinguish the two declarations she refers to on the timeline. This prima che .. altre is located before the 05:45 declaration. But apparently, after the "tea and pastries" that was described in the previous part along with Ghirga's suggestion.

But it isn't chronological, is it? Here's the part you quoted from PMF's transcript:

AK: So, during the interrogation, people were standing all around me, in front of me, behind me, one person was screaming at me from here, another person was shouting "No no no, maybe you just don't remember" from over there, other people were yelling other things, and a policewoman behind me did this to me [you hear the sound of her giving two very little whacks].

LG: Once, twice?

AK: Twice. The first time I did this, I turned around to her, and she did it again.

LG: I wanted to know this precise detail.

AK: Yes.

LG: After all that, that whole conversation, that you told us about, and you had a crying crisis, did they bring you some tea, coffee, some cakes, something? When was that exactly?

AK: They brought me things only after I had made some declarations. So, I was there, they were all screaming at me, I only wanted to leave because I was thinking that my mother was arriving, and I said look, can I have my telephone, because I want to call my mom. They said no, and there was this big mess with them shouting at me, threatening me, and it was only after I made declarations that they started saying "No, no, don't worry, we'll protect you," and that's how it happened.

LG: Then you stayed in the Questura?

AK: Yes.

LG: Then, at midday, or one o'clock, we don't know exactly, they brought you a paper called an arrest warrant. When they served you this warrant, it must have been around twelve, one o'clock. Do you remember?

They then start talking about the next day, being taken to prison, writing her handwritten statement - and only after all that does Ghirga double back and start talking about the interrogation again. The two quotes you posted have nothing to do with one another.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
Actually, SomeAlibi have shown that the whole area of the cottage is very dark. The video shows ....

The video shows? The video shows the whole area of the cottage ?

You missed my post in which I've shown it is visible from cars.

I don't miss. I don't see how you can claim it.

I don't think there are many passers by there. Unless they pass by car.

Many passers by are not needed. Only one passer by would be enough to get the burglar caught. Anyone on the parking lot. Or anyone driving or stopping or looking for the parking or leaving the underground parking.

Here's a photo showing how it really looks from the street level (e.g. for the approaching cars):
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_427054d094b980bbfc.jpg[/qimg]

And this?

I believe all that arguments were shot down already multiple times. Everything shows that the break-in did happen. From the distribution of the glass, position of the rock, traces on stepped upon clothing, evidence of someone jumping into the room, to the glass tracked into Meredith's room, her stolen items, the various multitude of traces left by the burglar-gone-killer and finally, her dead body.

I believe you shot them like rubber bullets would shoot at a tank. Byt showing the power of these arguments you just show why they are going to loose their appeal.

 

[shuttlt]

Surely the Google camera is positioned rather higher than a typical drivers eye level? Not that it isn't visible from the road, just not quite so visible.

 

[SomeAlibi]

You're right, the bare trees ae the smaller ones, the larger one goes out of the view. Although I think it's too close to the street and not tall enough to obscure the view from the opposing top floors.


I'm not the defence , I'm more interested in what really happened then what the Perugian court finds probable or not.
Knowing Rudy's other attempts I can't see how it's implausible that he chose that window to climb.
I also can't see how the window could be any difficulty to climb. Although I can understand that someone of more sedentary lifestyle and not accustomed to climbing (not even ladders) could feel intimidated by looking at that wall.



Thanks but you've posted pictures made with strong flash. By mistake, I'm sure.
It can't be ascertained from them how the cottage was really illuminated. Do you have any real long-exposure pictures like the one of the balcony you've posted before?

You're correct about the flash in fact which I could see in the second one but it's also the first which I hadn't appreciated because it doesn't look like it. I was experimenting with different takes and wasn't particularly scientific. The following two pictures are taken with a 0.25 and 0.5 second exposure apparently respectively no flash and are what I've got. In fact you will see that these pictures show that the cottage is in fact lighter, even at 0.25 second (c.f. 1 second for the balcony picture) than the picture with the flash from the railings where you can see the flash has illuminated the leaves near me but has actually underplayed the illumination of the cottage as a result. i.e the one from the railings has slightly overdarkened the cottage because of the flash in the foreground...

It's very visible, very well lit compared to the balcony which is not.

http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image.php?album_id=13&image_id=2224

http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image.php?album_id=13&image_id=2225

The camera is a Canon G9 digital handheld non-SLR with the standard flash built in - there is no powerful flash. Where I've shot the non-flash photographs, I've done it on the 'P' setting where the camera sets the length of exposure - you just hold down the button. The balcony picture is 1 second exposure. The sides of the cottage are 0.25 and 0.5 respectively which also provides you context as to the strength of lighting present.

I've put what I've got on the table. If you want to poo-poo it you will. I am willing to have a constructive debate on DNA and the like (ask Chris). I know what's strong and what's more open to challenge on my side of the debate. Correspondingly, you really ought to let this one go. Once you've seen it for real - and hopefully these help - the argument for Filomena's over the balcony is so terribly weak it's practically homeopathic.

 

[Machiavelli]

But it isn't chronological, is it? Here's the part you quoted from PMF's transcript:


They then start talking about the next day, being taken to prison, writing her handwritten statement - and only after all that does Ghirga double back and start talking about the interrogation again. The two quotes you posted have nothing to do with one another.

Yes but there is this word, altra dichiarazione. Which means, it is not the declaration, the first she talks about. There has been already one declaration. And we can assume the previous one is the one she talks about when she mentions the declaration - in terms like "until I made a declaration" - in relation to the crying and the tea, food, etc.

 

[katy_did]

Yes but there is this word, altra dichiarazione. Which means, it is not the declaration, the first she talks about. There has been already one declaration. And we can assume the previous one is the one she talks about when she mentions the declaration - in terms like "until I made a declaration" - in relation to the crying and the tea, food, etc.

But why are you assuming this to have anything to do with the earlier conversation about tea and cakes...? Here's the later part of the testimony from PMF (you can read the full context of the statements there; obviously the appeal quotes are partial):

LG: All right, I've finished the subject of the night in the Questura. When you made your first declaration, it was without the pubblico ministero. Then he came. Can you tell us if there was some discussion about a lawyer? If you remember, and whatever you remember.

AK: So, before they asked me to make further declarations--I really can't tell you what time it was, I was lost after hours and hours of the same thing--but at one point I asked if I shouldn't have a lawyer? I thought that, well, I didn't know, but I've seen things like this on television. When people do things like this they have lawyer. They told me, at least one of them told me that it would be worse for me because it would prove that I didn't want to collaborate with the police. So they told me no.

Here he's asking her when the discussion with the lawyer happened, not when she was brought tea and cakes.

 

[RoseMontague]

I believe you shot them like rubber bullets would shoot at a tank. Byt showing the power of these arguments you just show why they are going to loose their appeal.

I don't recall this argument being in the appeals. It seems to me that it would be nice to know which is easier and less exposed but that doesn't mean Rudy would think the same way. It wouldn't surprise me that his logic may have differed from yours on this one.

 

[Katody Matrass]

The video shows? The video shows the whole area of the cottage ?

It shows what someone driving by car or walking by could see. It's pitch black in the driveway, no window visible. But it's possibly due to low light lens and short exposure.

I don't miss. I don't see how you can claim it.

There were pictures in that post.

Many passers by are not needed. Only one passer by would be enough to get the burglar caught. Anyone on the parking lot. Or anyone driving or stopping or looking for the parking or leaving the underground parking.

That's true. And Rudy got caught a few times before, in fact

And this?

[qimg]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5165/5264978208_c8d6d916c1_z.jpg[/qimg]

Sigh. I believe I wrote about the Google Street View car twice or even three times already. Let me look it up for you, though.
I wrote in this post

I don't think I can agree with it, although I love google's Street View, too.
Google's car has a camera on a pole that places it 2,7 m above the ground.
Notice in your photo how you can easily admire the entire roof of the quite large van in front.
(Actually the StreetView car's camera height was a privacy concern in some countries as it is "peeking over the fence")
Filomena's window and the driveway is way below the street level.
I don't think someone driving on the right side of the road (that's how Italians do), and looking from the actual street level would get a good look there, not to mention illuminate it with headlights. And most of that distance you would see only the large tree, with branches going quite low.​

I believe you shot them like rubber bullets would shoot at a tank. Byt showing the power of these arguments you just show why they are going to loose their appeal.

Hmm. Do I have to repeat? I'm not the defence.

 

[RoseMontague]

Surely the Google camera is positioned rather higher than a typical drivers eye level? Not that it isn't visible from the road, just not quite so visible.

I don't think the lower window could be seen from eye level of a normal car height.

 

[SomeAlibi]

I don't think the lower window could be seen from eye level of a normal car height.

No you couldn't see the lower window from a car. The rock throwing position, the wall between the lower and upper windows and Filomena's window are in view. From the car park and the flats, the rock throwing position, lower window, wall and Filomena's window are all in view.

 

[Katody Matrass]

You're correct about the flash in fact which I could see in the second one but it's also the first which I hadn't appreciated because it doesn't look like it.

Thank you for those new pictures, they are beautiful although regrettably there is no view of Filomena's window or the wall in them.

http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image.php?album_id=13&image_id=2224

http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image.php?album_id=13&image_id=2225

I noticed also that the balcony window you posted before didn't come through so good as those two. Looking at the brightness of the asphalt, they are much more exposed.
I tried to fix it a bit, to match the levels with your other photos, it's still little less exposed, but it shows what's to be seen:
(you can click it to enlarge).
The balcony is noticeably illuminated.

I've put what I've got on the table. If you want to poo-poo it you will.

I think you're fair, although I'm more convinced by the arguments katy_did presented above. I think everything has been said on this topic and we have to agree to disagree. Thanks for the photos again.

I am willing to have a constructive debate on DNA and the like (ask Chris).

I'm looking forward

 

[Dan O.]

You made the claim that Machiavelli's argument is invalid on the basis of how memory works. All i'm asking you to do is to substantiate this claim.

I did substantiate my claim but you apparently have a different understanding of Machiavelli's argument. I need to know where you are coming from in order to explain where you are wrong or to better explain my argument in your terminology.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Just a small note before goodnight:

In fact you will see that these pictures show that the cottage is in fact lighter, even at 0.25 second (c.f. 1 second for the balcony picture) than the picture with the flash from the railings where you can see the flash has illuminated the leaves near me but has actually underplayed the illumination of the cottage as a result.

Having pictures both with and without flash is very informative.
Looking closely at the picture taken from the car park (down across the road) with flash, we can see that the cottage is barely in range of the flash.
But that flash still burned through all the shadows cast by the streetlight illumination. I.e. no shadows are visible, despite not strong flash. From that it's apparent how dimly lit the cottage really is.

Good night

 

[SomeAlibi]

Thank you for those new pictures, they are beautiful although regrettably there is no view of Filomena's window or the wall in them.



I noticed also that the balcony window you posted before didn't come through so good as those two. Looking at the brightness of the asphalt, they are much more exposed.
I tried to fix it a bit, to match the levels with your other photos, it's still little less exposed, but it shows what's to be seen:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_427054d0939e8ad8b7.jpg[/qimg](you can click it to enlarge).
The balcony is noticeably illuminated.

I think you're fair, although I'm more convinced by the arguments katy_did presented above. I think everything has been said on this topic and we have to agree to disagree. Thanks for the photos again.



I'm looking forward

Well look, it's one thing to have flash and not flash and provide both but pushing the levels up in photoshop doesn't do anything for accurate debate - that's simply not what it looks like there You go - it's not what it looks like! The balcony is not notably illuminated at all - you've just pushed the levels up until it looks like it is. But even if it were, which it is not, in any event it's still utterly plain the climb is completely obscured from all angles other than the top of the shutters and getting in cover of the shutters is a work of seconds from a standing position. I mean - really...

To your other point, the other pictures aren't exposed more, they've been taken by the camera automatically on a 4 times and 2 times shorter exposure time than the balcony because the light levels there are just much higher and that's that.

Katy_did's arguments on the choice of window are specious I'm afraid - not deliberately so but simply that's not how burglars work and this is an area I am an expert in, whatever else you may think of me, because it is meat and two vedge stock in trade to defend burglars. Even Steve Hyperbole Moore would tell you that the one thing a burglar does is thoroughly case (quickly, efficiently, sure) a house or apartment. A burglar always looks for lights on and always rings the doorbell at least twice to check no-one is in. If Rudy was going to break a window, he would have to check both lower and upper floors because of the sound of broken glass. He knew about both because he had been a guest of the boys side (by the balcony of course) at least twice.

Even better for Rudy, if he'd been there, had a perfect alibi for ringing the doorbell - he'd been there before, so no worries about using it at all - he wouldn't even need to reach for one of the burglar's stock-in-trade excuses for ringing the bell only to find someone at home. So very relaxed, if this was his intention. But this was 9pm. The chances of of someone being in but with the lights off or no light spilling from a window AND that they would not come to answer a ringing front door bell would have been so extremely low as to be utterly negligible. That's a general condition all burglars seek - always - before you even add in that it was a holiday where a lot of students had gone away to see family.

Burglars in such situations establish a really good level of comfort - doing a burglary with someone inside a house is a disaster for them - the thing to be avoided above all. You get really comfortable and then you make sure you're not seen going in. The balcony as in the two subsequent break-ins(!) is how you do that.

Burglars care about i) ensuring the place is empty and ii) not being observed during the break-in and iii) doing the break-in as easily, safely as possible. The argument that you go into Filomena's window just in case you get caught in that transitory act by someone on the inside is incredible. The suggestion is choose the option involving jumping down for preference a 14-18 foot drop from Filomena's window from a perilous tiny window ledge covered with broken glass versus lowering yourself in an instant from a balcony railing with a firm hand hold with about a two feet drop from a hanging position? Please. Come on!

Of course, once you are inside, the exit to Filomena's room and the entrance from the balcony both lead to... the same room - the communal kitchen. A completely specious argument.

You'll notice that your best debaters on your side of the argument (Wilkes / Chris H in my estimation) are willing to concede points or acknowledge weaknesses / inexplicable aspects of the evidence from their point of view.
I really judge your credibility by knowing when to say "yes ok that's just unlikely / weak". You even have a get out that Rudy could have simulated a break-in. But this is so terribly terribly weak... I'm really lost for words to be honest.

 

[SomeAlibi]

Just a small note before goodnight:



Having pictures both with and without flash is very informative.
Looking closely at the picture taken from the car park (down across the road) with flash, we can see that the cottage is barely in range of the flash.
But that flash still burned through all the shadows cast by the streetlight illumination. I.e. no shadows are visible, despite not strong flash. From that it's apparent how dimly lit the cottage really is.

Good night

I'm sorry, I'm sure you've totally lost everyone there. The pictures with a 0.25 second exposure and a 0.5 second exposure with no flash show you precisely that the cottage is well illuminated. That's the whole point!

http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image.php?album_id=13&image_id=2225

I know you'd prefer it not to be the case, but it is the case!

 

[Justinian2]

Surely the Google camera is positioned rather higher than a typical drivers eye level? Not that it isn't visible from the road, just not quite so visible.

The Google camera also shows a road without cars.

 

[Machiavelli]

But why are you assuming this to have anything to do with the earlier conversation about tea and cakes...? Here's the later part of the testimony from PMF (you can read the full context of the statements there; obviously the appeal quotes are partial):

Here he's asking her when the discussion with the lawyer happened, not when she was brought tea and cakes.

But because the substitution would be illogical. If at a certan point you have a description referred to the altra dichiarazione (another one, the other one), it is obvious that this altra cannot be the place of the one where it is related to tea and cakes. The "tea and cakes" episode is defined by a clear sequence of prima and dopo, there is a watershed, before and after. After a declaration, they would treat them in a new totally different manner (and consoaled her as she had just cried). While until before this watershed she did not make any adeclaration.
We cannot locate this watershed after the second declaration. This would be utterly illogical. We cannot say there has been a first previous accusation on Patrick hours before. It would make no sense. Consider also the change of tone of the onversation: "I asked if it would be necessary to call a lawyer", and they answered on a line of logical conversation, then they said "we will protect you".

 

[daydreamer]

You're correct about the flash in fact which I could see in the second one but it's also the first which I hadn't appreciated because it doesn't look like it. I was experimenting with different takes and wasn't particularly scientific. The following two pictures are taken with a 0.25 and 0.5 second exposure apparently respectively no flash and are what I've got. In fact you will see that these pictures show that the cottage is in fact lighter, even at 0.25 second (c.f. 1 second for the balcony picture) than the picture with the flash from the railings where you can see the flash has illuminated the leaves near me but has actually underplayed the illumination of the cottage as a result. i.e the one from the railings has slightly overdarkened the cottage because of the flash in the foreground...

It's very visible, very well lit compared to the balcony which is not.

http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image.php?album_id=13&image_id=2224

http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image.php?album_id=13&image_id=2225

The camera is a Canon G9 digital handheld non-SLR with the standard flash built in - there is no powerful flash. Where I've shot the non-flash photographs, I've done it on the 'P' setting where the camera sets the length of exposure - you just hold down the button. The balcony picture is 1 second exposure. The sides of the cottage are 0.25 and 0.5 respectively which also provides you context as to the strength of lighting present.

I've put what I've got on the table. If you want to poo-poo it you will. I am willing to have a constructive debate on DNA and the like (ask Chris). I know what's strong and what's more open to challenge on my side of the debate. Correspondingly, you really ought to let this one go. Once you've seen it for real - and hopefully these help - the argument for Filomena's over the balcony is so terribly weak it's practically homeopathic.

There are 3 factors that determine "exposure": 1) shutter speed, 2) aperture, 3) film speed (ISO,ASA). All contribute to the brightness of the picture. So saying an exposure of 1, .5, or .25 is irrelevant unless you know the other 2 parameters. Digital cameras adjust all 3 to determine the best exposure. So, these photos do not necessarily depict what the human eye would see. The video is probably closer to reality.