• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Chris C said:
9 feet can make a big difference in relation to line of sight.
Click to expand...


It means the difference between seeing the bottom window or not. But that's irrelevant. The rocking throwing position, the climb to the window and the entry to the window are all visible. What's your point?
 
SomeAlibi said:
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?
Click to expand...

What was used at Rudy's previous break in at the office? How about the house he broke into with the man and woman where there. He didn't have a tap hammer for the school he broke into either.
 
Last edited:
SomeAlibi said:
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
Click to expand...

Nice photo, but it actually strengthens my point. Let's set apart that you took it leaning over the railing and it doesn't show what could be seen from a car.
The point is - riding by car the wall and the window gets into the view (if you look hard to the right and behind) only after you've actually passed it, and only for a split second.
 
Withnail1969 said:
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.
Click to expand...


I didn't use any ambiguous language, I said that Raffaele had used LSD and cocaine. He had according to Amanda Knox. Your point again?
 
I read something here the other day but it was a few pages back. What is the story with all three peoples DNA being found on the bra clasp?
 
SomeAlibi said:
I didn't use any ambiguous language, I said that Raffaele had used LSD and cocaine. He had according to Amanda Knox. Your point again?
Click to expand...

So why didn't you say 'had used' in your subtitles instead of 'used'? That would clear up any mistaken impression given that Raffaele was a regular user of LSD and cocaine.
 
SomeAlibi said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's hard not to take your expertise with a grain of salt unless you post some credentials. But you can prove your experience and say which bruises are not consistent and why.
 
Chris C said:
Pic please.
Click to expand...


Actually I can do better than that for you, I have some video. I was going to use this in another full video post but I don't mind sticking the raw footage up. I'm on holiday today so I can participate properly in this debate. Two ticks and I'll get it up on youtube. It's shot from the road coming into Perugia then walking round the house up to where Filomena's window is.

Maximum disclosure is important. I have no interest in selectively representing information which is objectively and easily gathered if you make the effort to go to Perugia, which I have. Let us argue the case on the facts, not on misstatements such as the interview was 14 hours long, that Amanda was beaten, that half the jury were in tears when Andrea Vogt confirms they were not.
 
SomeAlibi said:
Which was my point. I appreciate that many Amanda supporters are not looking at the evidence as if they were to appeal it but this was really my point: arguing that the break-in is real is a deeply losing strategy with any jury given the choice to consider what is far more likely. Arguing Rudy as the simulator gives you a more credible ground for proceeding.
Click to expand...


If it can't be proven, then it is irrelevant whether it was a real break-in, a faked break-in or an act of vandalism committed by a person unrelated to the murder. There are so many possible explanations for the circumstances of this crime that reasonable doubt is beyond obvious.

As Tiziano pointed out to Raffaele, Meredith's DNA on the kitchen knife does not make it the murder weapon. Amanda's fingerprints on it certainly don't put her at the scene. Any of Amanda or Raffaele's bloody footprints in the house would not prove they committed murder. Even Rudy's DNA inside Meredith's body does not necessarily link him to a crime, nor do his bloody fingerprints, at least not according to his story.

An idealistically fair-minded jury might decline to make any decision at all on the defendants' involvement in this case. We will have to settle, once again, for who the judges want to believe.
 
SomeAlibi said:
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.
Click to expand...

I thought we agreed there was no balancing on the undisturbed glass. Or do you have something to add about it?
 
Katody Matrass said:
I thought we agreed there was no balancing on the undisturbed glass. Or do you have something to add about it?
Click to expand...


I hadn't agreed that point. How did "Rudy" get in the window without balancing on the sill / putting his knees on it at some point? The window is off centre and the left hand (as you look out) side where the glass is is both where someone entering would have needed to grip and where they would have needed to balance. No?
 
Chris C said:
What was used at Rudy's previous break in at the office? How about the house he broke into with the man and woman where there. He didn't have a tap hammer for the school he broke into either.
Click to expand...


Chris, I raised sticking an elbow through the glass, kicking it in or using a tap hammer (much less likely since contingent on you having one on you) and a small rock ALL as possibilities?
 
SomeAlibi said:
I hadn't agreed that point. How did "Rudy" get in the window without balancing on the sill / putting his knees on it at some point? The window is off centre and the left hand (as you look out) side where the glass is is both where someone entering would have needed to grip and where they would have needed to balance. No?
Click to expand...

I posted about it, you could have missed it in the general frenzy today.
 
loverofzion said:
"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.
Click to expand...


I have dreamt about killing someone, loverofzion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom