Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[quadraginta]

Thanks, quadraginta!
I understand that you agree with me, that climbing the grating to the window would be easy, a fit young man could have done it if he decided to and he wouldn't perceive it as impossible.

Except for the adjective "easy", I've never once said anything that even remotely suggested otherwise. In fact I have stated on more than one occasion that the issue was not whether it was possible or not. Usually while responding to people making the bogus claim that hordes of evil Knox haters were all asserting it was "impossible", while the truth was that all but an occasional hyperbolic comment merely said that it wouldn't be "easy".

"Easy" lies at the crux of this discussion, not whether it was doable.

 

[RoseMontague]

But you are not alone in this respect. The calling of the baby rapist and murderer in support of AK and RS and the ridiculous continual-computer-use-through-the-night-with-no-internet-or-application-record use are credibility destroying lines of argument that I am utterly baffled by on the part of the defence attorneys. It points to a certain sense of desperation in my opinion.

http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image.php?album_id=13&image_id=2164

I agree with you on the calling on the testimony of the two prison inmates.

As far as the computer activity goes, it is what it is, and if that shows fairly continuous use, then it is an alibi and evidence the police non-expert missed.
When I watch a movie on a laptop I will adjust the sound, the screen size, sometimes pause, playback or advance. I would think this type of thing is not at all unusual and if these screen-saver logs show this type of thing it is going to help in the establishment of an alibi. What the defense is asking for is simply another expert opinion and this gives them the reason to do so. I can think of no reason this should be denied.

 

[Dan O.]

If the question is whether or not the break-in actually was staged then considerations about likely means of entry are completely relevant, and far from meaningless.

If someone decided to stage a break-in and wanted to be able to claim that they had not noticed it even after wandering around the apartment then Filomena's room would be the logical choice. It is the only room which can both be closed from view of the rest of the apartment and has an unbarred window ... other than Knox's, that is.

That kind of planning ahead shows remarkably clear thinking for a pair that are supposed to be so high on pot that they would help Rudy murder their friend Meredith.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Hi, SomeAlibi

I agree that adjusting that image with Photoshop is not the way to go.
But still, since you posted it yesterday, I cannot get rid of the feeling that there's something very wrong with that picture.
http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image.php?album_id=13&image_id=2221
When you mentioned Photoshop, idea came to me to look at that picture's histogram and test it with the "eyedropper" tool.
The results I got made me wonder how on earth could you set up the camera to get something like this.
You posted the exif data and it makes me baffled even more.
There's no way that camera would produce that image the way it is.

SomeAlibi, some details of what I found about the jpg you posted:

The histogram.


What we see immediately that although there are overexposed spots in the photo where various points of light, streetlights etc were, there is absolute zero of pixels in the upper range of luminosity.


The little peak in luminosity corresponding to the overexposed points of light is in the middle of the histogram. It means they are gray, not white. But overexposing would result in 100% white, not gray.

Here's a closeup of one of the overexposed spots:

Should be 100% white.


But it is perfect gray.

What happened?



I'm not happy to say this, but for now the only explanation I see is that someone tampered with that photo, adjusting levels, brightness or making some other modifications that resulted in effectively cutting the max luminosity in half and making the picture look very dark.

 

[RoseMontague]

That kind of planning ahead shows remarkably clear thinking for a pair that are supposed to be so high on pot that they would help Rudy murder their friend Meredith.

Exactly, the plan I presented containing some of the Massei reasoning on this is nothing short of silliness.

 

[platonov]

Originally Posted by Dan O.
Thanks. But what was just posted was not the most recent version. I added this line a few days ago:

06:22 Screensaver on Raffaele's computer kicks in marking the end of human activity on the computer for the night. (from appeal documents, unverified)

I presume (without having to look - yea, its that obvious ) he is referring to the 5.30 - 6.00 AM activity.

I could be wildly wrong on this and look foolish, but I trust you Dan O.

No response - Dan O ?

I must have presumed correctly.

I wont bother Randi with this latest feat - I suspect he would throw something at me (a large rock maybe) or poke me with a long stick.

 

[Dan O.]

We can also leave aside silly distinctions between ringing bells versus knocking on doors - come on people...

You have said you were there so your unique perspective should help answer the question of whether Rudy was dispensing crap in more ways than one when he said he heard the doorbell while he was sitting on the toilet.

Did you ring the doorbell or did you knock on the door before entering the cottage? Is there is a doorbell that is accessible when the gate is open and in it's stored position?

 

[Withnail1969]

SomeAlibi, some details of what I found about the jpg you posted:

The histogram.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/427054d0a03814d38b.png[/qimg]

What we see immediately that although there are overexposed spots in the photo where various points of light, streetlights etc were, there is absolute zero of pixels in the upper range of luminosity.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/427054d0a02b9c06c1.png[/qimg]

The little peak in luminosity corresponding to the overexposed points of light is in the middle of the histogram. It means they are gray, not white. But overexposing would result in 100% white, not gray.

Here's a closeup of one of the overexposed spots:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_427054d0a0ac88c858.jpg[/qimg]
Should be 100% white.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_427054d0a0afec2b39.jpg[/qimg]
But it is perfect gray.

What happened?



I'm not happy to say this, but for now the only explanation I see is that someone tampered with that photo, adjusting levels, brightness or making some other modifications that resulted in effectively cutting the max luminosity in half and making the picture look very dark.

That explains why the balcony is so hard to see. Street lights shine with a special grey light in Perugia.

 

[shuttlt]

As far as the computer activity goes, it is what it is, and if that shows fairly continuous use, then it is an alibi and evidence the police non-expert missed.
When I watch a movie on a laptop I will adjust the sound, the screen size, sometimes pause, playback or advance. I would think this type of thing is not at all unusual and if these screen-saver logs show this type of thing it is going to help in the establishment of an alibi. What the defense is asking for is simply another expert opinion and this gives them the reason to do so. I can think of no reason this should be denied.

What perplexes me about this alibi is that the claim seems to be that Amanda and/or Raffaele used the computer ALL night. I don't see how they can have forgotten this. One or other, or both of them must have been knackered the next day.

 

[quadraginta]

How would you have documented your findings to make the case in court that the scene was staged?

Gee. I donno.

Maybe take pictures or something?

 

[RoseMontague]

What perplexes me about this alibi is that the claim seems to be that Amanda and/or Raffaele used the compute ALL night. I don't see how they can have forgotten this. One or other, or both of them must have been knackered the next day.

For me as well. However, one of the hardest things to get used to for a lot of people is actually sleeping with a partner (vs various physical activities).

 

[platonov]

Exactly, the plan I presented containing some of the Massei reasoning on this is nothing short of silliness.

As regards (part of) point 3 and points 4 & 5 - agreed, they are nothing short of silliness.
Massei wasnt the source however

 

[shuttlt]

For me as well. However, one of the hardest things to get used to for a lot of people is actually sleeping with a partner (vs various physical activities).

Not for me, but who knows. I just don't see them forgetting that they touched the computer every 15 minutes all night only to remember now that an opinion has been expressed that the computer log may show this.

 

[RoseMontague]

As regards (part of) point 3 and points 4 & 5 - agreed, they are nothing short of silliness.
Massei wasnt the source however

pg 386

386

That this action of cleaning could have been carried out the same night, immediately after the murder, seems difficult to hypothesis e. To linger on in the house where Meredith’s body lay could have been risky. On the contrary, returning in the morning would have allowed [them] to do the cleaning under better conditions and with more time available; it is also possible that more cleaning products were needed, as the visit to Quintavalle’s shop leads us to believe. Furthermore, once the mobile phones had been taken, and the door had been locked, there would have been no compelling reason not to put off the cleaning until early the next morning. If anyone had arrived at the house (Silenzi, for example) the closed door would have convinced him or her that Meredith was not in her room, and the impossibility of hearing Meredith’s phones ring would not have given rise to any suspicion. Nor is it held that what was presented with reference to the cleaning activity and the
prints elimination is contradicted by the prints that were actually found and this with particular reference to the prints of shoes left in the corridor. In this regard, [416] it can in fact by hypothesised that the cleaning action was not particularly careful or else - and this second hypothesis is held to be more probable since the shoe prints, as has been recalled, were fairly evident - that such an omission was intentional, in the knowledge that, having been in Meredith’s room, when the latter was killed, with bare feet as has already been noted, the shoe prints in blood would have constituted an exonerating element in their defence.

 

[quadraginta]

That kind of planning ahead shows remarkably clear thinking for a pair that are supposed to be so high on pot that they would help Rudy murder their friend Meredith.

Or either it doesn't.

As someone here recently pointed out, staged break-ins are rarely convincing. They are also not that uncommon. Unfortunately for such efforts about the only dependably convincing way to do one would be to actually break in, which would offer some obvious drawbacks under the particular circumstances we're discussing. Also, people who do not actually break into places as a career choice or view the results of such activities as a profession are not the best equipped to reproduce the process convincingly. I think we can agree that neither Sollecito or Knox were practiced burglars. If they had made such an attempt at staging then it would be no surprise if they were to botch the job, but thinking that they were clever enough to pull it off doesn't test any limits of probability. That's why people get caught at it so often and so easily.

 

[SomeAlibi]

Hi, SomeAlibi

I agree that adjusting that image with Photoshop is not the way to go.
But still, since you posted it yesterday, I cannot get rid of the feeling that there's something very wrong with that picture.
http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image.php?album_id=13&image_id=2221
When you mentioned Photoshop, idea came to me to look at that picture's histogram and test it with the "eyedropper" tool.
The results I got made me wonder how on earth could you set up the camera to get something like this.
You posted the exif data and it makes me baffled even more.
There's no way that camera would produce that image the way it is.

I agree that that photo is not right. It looked ok on my home PC but I am in lunchbreak on the laptop that I took to Perugia and dumped all the pictures and videos on when I was there which has the raw directory which has more images in 4000x3000 rather than the selection I took to resize to 800x600. The picture is so dark I can see practically no detail on this screen in both the extracted file and in the original picture. I also have two completely black pictures in the same directory a couple of pictures on. I have no idea what the issue is there.

From the master directory I have pulled another picture which I hadn't selected for the original download because it's a little far off but is much more consistent with the longer-exposures I have around the rest of Perugia. This is again a much longer exposure so I emphasise the lighting is much too bright - see the lamps etc and the balcony in no way looks that bright.

http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image.php?album_id=13&image_id=2230

I also note that the edge of the balcony wall peeks out over the top of this previously linked picture which may give you context to relative lighting.

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

But again, the point of these pictures (on which you've now cleaned me out) is about the coverage of the climb by the outhouse and the foliage not about illumination. Again, once inside the coverage of those shutters, there is no-one who can see a burglar from the road and no flats, as already shown, overlook the angle where one can see *over* the top of the outhouse although Withnail is studiously trying to avoid the point. Again, the picture from Sky is taken on the far right car-park behind which there are no overlooking flats. There is no view from flats on which to see a burglar moving from the railing to the shutters and the view from the road at extreme distance in the dark in the couple of seconds that would have been possible, with car headlights being the give away for a burglar would simply have been very easy to avoid. As was done twice after the arrests by people performing real breaking and enterings.

 

[Dan O.]

What perplexes me about this alibi is that the claim seems to be that Amanda and/or Raffaele used the compute ALL night. I don't see how they can have forgotten this. One or other, or both of them must have been knackered the next day.

For me as well. However, one of the hardest things to get used to for a lot of people is actually sleeping with a partner (vs various physical activities).

You would think that if someone was up all night using the computer that they would go back to bed after being awaken at 9 or 10AM instead of getting up to have breakfast

 

[Supernaut]

halides1

I don't dig - I shovel

You can say that again!

 

[SomeAlibi]

Not for me, but who knows. I just don't see them forgetting that they touched the computer every 15 minutes all night only to remember now that an opinion has been expressed that the computer log may show this.

But Raffaele never claimed he did this, all through the night until 6.20 in the morning. He says he slept and until 10 and in his earlier versions he said he wasn't sure how long Amanda was away from him for and that she might have returned at 1 o'clock in the morning. You can't start making up stuff for him when he never said it in the first instance!

 

[SomeAlibi]

argument from personal authority


SNIP

I told you that almost any law enforcement officer will agree what I've put which is, yes, an argument from experience but one that is easily corroborated if you don't happen to agree the argument from common sense that burglars like to be as sure as possible there's no-one in the properties they are burgling during times when people might reasonably be anticipated to be in occupation and awake. Your hostility rebounds on you repeatedly. Try some arguments from argument perhaps.