Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Withnail1969]

This doesn't make any sense. If you are coming into Perugia (the lane closest to the cottage), you look right out of the car window and spot Rudy. If you are leaving Perugia, you look left out of the car window and spot Rudy but with you are 9 feet further away. The concept of "correct" lane is meaningless.

Chris C is right. We need some shots from both sides taken from the right hand lane.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I already explained the difference between the pictures on the master directory created in Perugia holding 4000x3000 rez pictures which is on my laptop on which I am posting today versus the 800x600 selective directory from which I uploaded on my home PC. The black photo is so black on this laptop which has a very high quality screen on it that I can see literally very little at all. My home PC monitor is clearly way too bright or this would be have been clear pre-posting. I did view the pictures at the end of a day's action in my hotel, late at night to dump them to disc and free up the camera (since I was taking a lot of long video) - if I altered anything there and then that is it or doing something odd the camera - that's the only two possibilities. The images are unchanged since then.

So you admit no one was in position to alter this photo apart from you. What is the probability you fired an editing application and dragged the brightness or levels down by accident?

The black photo is so black on this laptop which has a very high quality screen on it that I can see literally very little at all. My home PC monitor is clearly way too bright or this would be have been clear pre-posting.

Maybe it looked so bright you felt the need to tone it down, as it was intended to prove how dark the area is?

Believe what you will.

As Machiavelli likes to say, no judge or jury would believe it

There's no other two mistakes - you correctly pointed out they were flash and I said they were. I point in full auto or in full 'P' - that is the extent of my talent and that's the end of it.

For someone who just point and shoot you like to talk about "long exposures" "f/stops" and "max appertures" much. The jury's faces are cold and expressionless

 

[TomCH]

I would have carried the rock with me and then used it as a hammer once I was on the sill.

How does one carry an 8 lb. rock while climbing a wall, in your pocket?

 

[SomeAlibi]

How so? Rudy stands convicted of Meredith's murder and rape. In the Knox/Sollecito appeal, the prosecution is going to HAVE to prove that Rudy helped them or that Knox/Sollecito helped Rudy. The court ruling also by confirming Guede's conviction, confirms an earlier ToD.

The rulings in both cases refer to the numerous injuries, particularly bruises to Meredith's body from being restrained by multiple parties. Alert: argument from experience: the bruises are not consistent with that observed typically in a single assaultant crime, the use of two knives is inexplicable in a single assaultant crime. As far as the case to date is concerned, the prosecution already proved that if proof is equated to the finding of the court of first instance. There's one appeal outstanding to reprove / disprove this particular point given the last appeal will not rule on evidence as I understand it.

 

[SomeAlibi]

Chris C is right. We need some shots from both sides taken from the right hand lane.

No you don't. Let me clear this up for you: today, as you approach the cottage from the gate end but walking past it on the road, you can't see to Filomena's window because the tree on the outside of the drive blocks the view. The view is less than that picture indicates. Where you see Rudy from either lane is when you are near parallel to the end of the drive and Filomena's window and there you can see both the rock-throwing point and the window from either lane.

 

[Katody Matrass]

This doesn't make any sense. If you are coming into Perugia (the lane closest to the cottage), you look right out of the car window and spot Rudy. If you are leaving Perugia, you look left out of the car window and spot Rudy but with you are 9 feet further away. The concept of "correct" lane is meaningless.

You need to refresh your memories. The Filomena's wall faces away from the road. Slightly, but enough to see it only in your rear view mirror for a fraction of second (before it disappears behind the tree) if you're driving towards the town.

The spot were Rudy would stand is obscured by the corner of the house. It is below the road level and is additionally obscured by the road edge and the railing. If you're leaving Perugia (right side of the road) you wouldn't see it at all because it's too low and obscured by the tree for most of the time.

 

[Withnail1969]

The rulings in both cases refer to the numerous injuries, particularly bruises to Meredith's body from being restrained by multiple parties. Alert: argument from experience: the bruises are not consistent with that observed typically in a single assaultant crime, the use of two knives is inexplicable in a single assaultant crime. As far as the case to date is concerned, the prosecution already proved that if proof is equated to the finding of the court of first instance. There's one appeal outstanding to reprove / disprove this particular point given the last appeal will not rule on evidence as I understand it.

More unsubstantiated assertions. What do you say to allegations that you crudely tampered with your photo of the cottage to make it look darker?

 

[loverofzion]

I'm asking you to imagine the stress, the headaches, the agitation, the rage at being falsely accused, the fear that your life has been destroyed, the frustration at people that do not believe you, your reality is beginning to break, and your love of society is in ruin.


Yes, it is D-Day for you and your family.



Good.



Agreed.



Partly good. Have you ever had a dream where you thought you killed someone? Boy, it is real. When you wake up, you have to think about it for awhile. Then relief comes when you know you've never lived in a house with a dirt floor in the basement, so that your dream of digging a hole in the basement to bury the body must have been false. Then you think "Thank God", roll over, and go back to sleep.




Good.



Soldiers die to protect their peers. It is hardly irrelevant what they think.

Furthermore, I would suspect that ALL police reports are considerably FUBAR of real events. I see no reason to believe otherwise.

"Have you ever hd a dream where you thought you killed someone"?!
Are you for real.
amanda wasn't dreaming of killing that night, and I doubt you ever did either.

Seriously is that the best defense you can think up.

 

[SomeAlibi]

So you admit no one was in position to alter this photo apart from you. What is the probability you fired an editing application and dragged the brightness or levels down by accident?


Maybe it looked so bright you felt the need to tone it down, as it was intended to prove how dark the area is?

As Machiavelli likes to say, no judge or jury would believe it


For someone who just point and shoot you like to talk about "long exposures" "f/stops" and "max appertures" much. The jury's faces are cold and expressionless

Whereas you actually deliberately used photoshop to boost an image. I copied the information out of the file properties to the picture. That's got nothing to do with expertise in taking pictures. I've posted every image I've got at night of the cottage including other images which already showed the relative lighting of the balcony - which would be a very funny thing to do if I was trying actively to mislead you - and in any respect my points are on the view being obscured not the illumination which you keep on studiously attempting to ignore. How about addressing that actual question about the fact that one can't see either the base of the balcony or the climb at all compared to the highly visible rock-throwing position and the climb to the window which is overseen by a much greater area. This argument is about line of sight and you have consistently failed to address it in a way that would convince any jury.

http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image.php?album_id=13&image_id=2180

 

[SomeAlibi]

More unsubstantiated assertions. What do you say to allegations that you crudely tampered with your photo of the cottage to make it look darker?

"Unsubstantiated assertions"? It's the official prosecution case. Have you read Massei - yes or no?

 

[Chris C]

This doesn't make any sense. If you are coming into Perugia (the lane closest to the cottage), you look right out of the car window and spot Rudy. If you are leaving Perugia, you look left out of the car window and spot Rudy but with you are 9 feet further away. The concept of "correct" lane is meaningless.

9 feet can make a big difference in relation to line of sight.

 

[Withnail1969]

Whereas you actually deliberately used photoshop to boost an image. I copied the information out of the file properties to the picture. That's got nothing to do with expertise in taking pictures. I've posted every image I've got at night of the cottage including other images which already showed the relative lighting of the balcony - which would be a very funny thing to do if I was trying actively to mislead you - and in any respect my points are on the view being obscured not the illumination which you keep on studiously attempting to ignore. How about addressing that actual question about the fact that one can't see either the base of the balcony or the climb at all compared to the highly visible rock-throwing position and the climb to the window which is overseen by a much greater area. This argument is about line of sight and you have consistently failed to address it in a way that would convince any jury.

http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image.php?album_id=13&image_id=2180

Your line of sight picture is incorrect. Katody has already clearly shown that the balcony is visible from a considerable proportion of the road. If you're going to present such distortions of the truth, like your subtitles on your video claiming Amanda and Raff used LSD and cocaine, you can't expect people to engage seriously with you.

 

[Chris C]

This is a specious argument on two counts. Firstly, burglars check people are not in the property (clearly without the possibility of being right 100% of the time) and then they effect the entry. This line of argument that Rudy would have chosen the overlooked and much more difficult climb just on the very small chance that his initial check-out was wrong loses on the balance of probabilities that in doing so he risked being seen and risked breaking his neck. Secondly, why do you think a rock is necessary to break in via the balcony? This whole idea of tossing a rock up onto the balcony is just daft. If you were going to use a rock, which is not what most burglars do, you only need a small one, not the large one used to apparently chuck through the window from a couple of metres away at Filomena's window. Most burglars will use something like the tap hammer that was confiscated off Rudy previously or they will stick a jacketed elbow through the glass. Again, in opening the shutters to the balcony door, a burglar would have had an opportunity to look into the property and see if anyone was in. But tossing a rock up onto the balcony? Doesn't make any sense.

You grab whats available. However, what would rudy toss through the balcony door? A chair? You feel the climb onto the balcony is easier? Without knowing what is available to use to break the balcony door, you would need to toss something over the railing to help break the glass in the door.

 

[SomeAlibi]

You need to refresh your memories. The Filomena's wall faces away from the road. Slightly, but enough to see it only in your rear view mirror for a fraction of second (before it disappears behind the tree) if you're driving towards the town.

The spot were Rudy would stand is obscured by the corner of the house. It is below the road level and is additionally obscured by the road edge and the railing. If you're leaving Perugia (right side of the road) you wouldn't see it at all because it's too low and obscured by the tree for most of the time.

At least argue something relevant. The bottom window isn't visible from the right hand lane further away but that's irrelevant - the rock-throwing position and the climb up and the balancing on the undisturbed glass and the apparent entry into the cottage is plainly visible side and near side on from either lane. This picture is taken by the railings at a height of about five foot nine (I'm six foot).

http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image.php?album_id=13&image_id=2136

 

[SomeAlibi]

Your line of sight picture is incorrect. Katody has already clearly shown that the balcony is visible from a considerable proportion of the road. If you're going to present such distortions of the truth, like your subtitles on your video claiming Amanda and Raff used LSD and cocaine, you can't expect people to engage seriously with you.

Did you read the replies I posted?

i) The video doesn't say Amanda used LSD or cocaine. Question 1: why do you suggest I said this when it is not the case?

ii) The video says Raffaele used LSD and cocaine and the source of this was Amanda Knox in her police interviews. Question 2: are you saying Amanda was lying?

Question 3: given that Amanda Knox said that Raffaele used LSD and cocaine please substantiate the suggestion that my repeating her statement is a "distortion of the truth".

I presume you withdraw your inaccurate statement?

 

[SomeAlibi]

You grab whats available. However, what would rudy toss through the balcony door? A chair? You feel the climb onto the balcony is easier? Without knowing what is available to use to break the balcony door, you would need to toss something over the railing to help break the glass in the door.

I already explained: jacketed elbow is usual. Foot. Tap hammer. Or yes, you could use one of the chairs which were on the balcony visible from below. What's so hard?

 

[Katody Matrass]

Whereas you actually deliberately used photoshop to boost an image.

Which I announced upfront while you sneaked in with your tampered image hoping you'll fool everyone.

I copied the information out of the file properties to the picture. That's got nothing to do with expertise in taking pictures.

I can believe it, considering how amateurishly the image was modified to look dark.

I've posted every image I've got at night of the cottage including other images which already showed the relative lighting of the balcony - which would be a very funny thing to do if I was trying actively to mislead you

Yes, after you've been outed. That could've been damage control. It's like Amanda pointing the blood and the feces to the policemen that came too early, isn't it ?

- and in any respect my points are on the view being obscured not the illumination which you keep on studiously attempting to ignore.

Let me quote the transcript :

The balcony is not illuminated by streetlight as shown on November 29th 2010 when I took this picture at about 9pm. NB this picture is taken with a one second exposure and is therefore much more illuminated than it was in practice. It's dark round that side of the house, really dark and as you can see, the entire climb is obscured by the outhouse. Only a momentary entry into the cover of the shutters would have been necessary - a matter of seconds easily timed.

Iit's dark, really dark.
You seriously emphasized the darkness when you posted your tampered photo. You didn't mean it? Now you have better truth?

 

[Withnail1969]

Did you read the replies I posted?

i) The video doesn't say Amanda used LSD or cocaine. Question 1: why do you suggest I said this when it is not the case?

ii) The video says Raffaele used LSD and cocaine and the source of this was Amanda Knox in her police interviews. Question 2: are you saying Amanda was lying?

Question 3: given that Amanda Knox said that Raffaele used LSD and cocaine please substantiate the suggestion that my repeating her statement is a "distortion of the truth".

I presume you withdraw your inaccurate statement?

I hadn't viewed the video for a while so i was under the mistaken impression that the subtitles said both of them used the drugs. Are you claiming Amanda said Raffaele was a regular user of the drugs or that he had used them at some point in the past? Your ambiguous language doesn't make the situation clear.

 

[Chris C]

The rulings in both cases refer to the numerous injuries, particularly bruises to Meredith's body from being restrained by multiple parties. Alert: argument from experience: the bruises are not consistent with that observed typically in a single assaultant crime, the use of two knives is inexplicable in a single assaultant crime. As far as the case to date is concerned, the prosecution already proved that if proof is equated to the finding of the court of first instance. There's one appeal outstanding to reprove / disprove this particular point given the last appeal will not rule on evidence as I understand it.

And at what time was Meredith receiving these bruises? What was Rudy doing for the 3 hours while he was already at the apartment awaiting for the 1130pm arrival time that Mignini proposes? What about his leaving before 10:30pm? How does that fit into the 11:30pm attack time proposed by Mignini? Why is Rudy's finger prints and shoe prints the only 1 of the 3 in the blood?

 

[Withnail1969]

I already explained: jacketed elbow is usual. Foot. Tap hammer. Or yes, you could use one of the chairs which were on the balcony visible from below. What's so hard?

If my father's double glazed security glass on his patio doors could be broken with an elbow i think he would be asking for a refund.