Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Bruce Fischer]

It makes no difference how many sites I post on. I am talking about allegations made by Oggi and Ms Dempsey. I fail to see what you are not able to grasp. These allegations have been refuted, nay LAUGHED at, by Frank from perugia Shock. This is not about a group. This is about certain statements made, and I have pointed out, that they are false, according to Frank.

Kindly address the point made by me.

At this time various credible sources disagree on a point. I currently have Oggi and Paul Ciolino addressing problems with Nara's testimony. Candace is reporting on what Oggi reported. Paul was in Perugia conducting interviews. Frank is obviously reporting from Italy.

At this point, I don't have confirmation that can dismiss any of them. What is it that you are asking for? Would you like Foakers to say that Nara's testimony is completely useless but we are still debating just how screwed up Nara is? I mean come on, even if we disagree on Nara's hearing there is still plenty of information to discredit her.

The website(s) that you participate in cling to information that has long been refuted. There is no ongoing debate about those topics. You are part of a group of people that actively distributes misinformation and promotes hate. I don't think you are in any position to suggest how others should behave.

Say hi to zorba for me. That person is obviously a genius.

 

[quadraginta]

As I understand it, the police claim there was no glass under the window but do not claim they searched the area thoroughly, and took no photographs whatsoever of the area under the window that might prove or disprove the claim.

The pro-guilt argument is that lack of glass on the ground under the window proves that the window was not broken by a slow-mving projectile launched from outside. This is not backed up either by evidence or by physics. When glass is broken by a slow-moving projectile most of the glass goes in the direction of the projectile and a moderate amount of glass falls straight down. Glass doesn't fly backwards and I'm not sure why anyone ever thought it should. <snip>

Probably because in the earliest of these Cartwheel Threads ... when the subject first came up ... more than a few studies were cited, ones performed to assist forensics for law enforcement as well as for insurance companies, which demonstrated quite irrefutably that glass does indeed fly backwards.

I'm not going to bother searching out those particular posts, not only because I don't feel constrained to abet either your failing memory or your laziness, but also because it is so simple to find more.

A quick Google search easily supplied this, this, and this. I'll leave you to find as many more as you like on your own.

 

[capealadin]

At this time various credible sources disagree on a point. I currently have Oggi and Paul Ciolino addressing problems with Nara's testimony. Candace is reporting on what Oggi reported. Paul was in Perugia conducting interviews. Frank is obviously reporting from Italy.

At this point, I don't have confirmation that can dismiss any of them. What is it that you are asking for? Would you like Foakers to say that Nara's testimony is completely useless but we are still debating just how screwed up Nara is? I mean come on, even if we disagree on Nara's hearing there is still plenty of information to discredit her.

The website(s) that you participate in cling to information that has long been refuted. There is no ongoing debate about those topics. You are part of a group of people that actively distributes misinformation and promotes hate. I don't think you are in any position to suggest how others should behave.

Say hi to zorba for me. That person is obviously a genius.

Let me help you out. Frank has refuted on his blog, Perugia Shock. I suppose one must take it, then, that you are calling Frank a liar. Call a spade a spade. I honestly don't know what other confirmation you need. Perhaps Paul has spoken to Nara, and she told him something diferent?

You are the one discussing hate groups. I am not. I am taking issue with statements, made by Oggi, Ms. Dempsey and Paul, which have been reputed. Is Perugia Shock a hate group then? Because I'm taking Frank's word on this. He's laughed at the posters disagreeing with him. Poor Frank. It;s his word against them.

I would send your regards to Zorba, but I don't believe he will return the compliment, in that he finds you a genius. Perhaps you'd like to let him know yourself. Nothing like getting it from the horse's mouth, I always think.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Let me help you out. Frank has refuted on his blog, Perugia Shock. I suppose one must take it, then, that you are calling Frank a liar. Call a spade a spade. I honestly don't know what other confirmation you need. Perhaps Paul has spoken to Nara, and she told him something diferent?

You are the one discussing hate groups. I am not. I am taking issue with statements, made by Oggi, Ms. Dempsey and Paul, which have been reputed. Is Perugia Shock a hate group then? Because I'm taking Frank's word on this. He's laughed at the posters disagreeing with him. Poor Frank. It;s his word against them.

I would send your regards to Zorba, but I don't believe he will return the compliment, in that he finds you a genius. Perhaps you'd like to let him know yourself. Nothing like getting it from the horse's mouth, I always think.

Like I said, there is a disagreement among various credible sources. I do not have clarification on who is correct. Can that be said any clearer?

The issues with Nara are far greater than the one point of disagreement. I don't see how this one point helps your position. She is unreliable either way.

Why would Frank's blog be a hate site for disagreeing with someone on a story? That makes very little sense. All of the sources mentioned agree that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent. You are really trying to hard here. You have nothing to work with. Give it up.

The site you participate in is a hate site because it goes to great lengths to attack Amanda Knox’s family members. Contests are held on the discussion board to see who can come up with the most sarcastic tagline for photos of Amanda’s family. Amanda's parents are constantly attacked for supporting their daughter. A PMF member named "Macport" made a photo collage of Amanda’s sister crying at different stages of the trial simply to mock her. They don’t stop with the adults in the family either. Both of Amanda’s youngest sisters have been targeted. Photos of the two have been posted on their discussion board and members of the group, such as Julia Perez (Jools), a cyberstalking PMF member from Spain, have even made efforts to view their facebook accounts. Two PMF members, Windfall and Earthling, recently suggested that the girls were "acting" when they showed emotion for their older sister. These are innocent children being targeted by a group that claims to be running a site dedicated to Meredith Kercher.

Maybe you can explain to me how attacking Amanda’s family preserves the memory of Meredith Kercher.

There are many more examples, I only mentioned a small sampling of the hatred shown by the site in which you are an active member. To be honest, I was lazy and copied it from a previous article I wrote. You can find the mentioned article posted on several websites if you have any interest in learning any more fun facts about your group.

 

[Mary_H]

Let me help you out. Frank has refuted on his blog, Perugia Shock. I suppose one must take it, then, that you are calling Frank a liar.

Disagreeing with Frank doesn't amount to calling him a liar. Don't you disagree with his views about the defendants' innocence?

 

[capealadin]

Like I said, there is a disagreement among various credible sources. I do not have clarification on who is correct. Can that be said any clearer?

The issues with Nara are far greater than the one point of disagreement. I don't see how this one point helps your position. She is unreliable either way.

Why would Frank's blog be a hate site for disagreeing with someone on a story? That makes very little sense. All of the sources mentioned agree that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent. You are really trying to hard here. You have nothing to work with. Give it up.

The site you participate in is a hate site because it goes to great lengths to attack Amanda Knox’s family members. Contests are held on the discussion board to see who can come up with the most sarcastic tagline for photos of Amanda’s family. Amanda's parents are constantly attacked for supporting their daughter. A PMF member named "Macport" made a photo collage of Amanda’s sister crying at different stages of the trial simply to mock her. They don’t stop with the adults in the family either. Both of Amanda’s youngest sisters have been targeted. Photos of the two have been posted on their discussion board and members of the group, such as Julia Perez (Jools), a cyberstalking PMF member from Spain, have even made efforts to view their facebook accounts. Two PMF members, Windfall and Earthling, recently suggested that the girls were "acting" when they showed emotion for their older sister. These are innocent children being targeted by a group that claims to be running a site dedicated to Meredith Kercher.

Maybe you can explain to me how attacking Amanda’s family preserves the memory of Meredith Kercher.

There are many more examples, I only mentioned a small sampling of the hatred shown by the site in which you are an active member. To be honest, I was lazy and copied it from a previous article I wrote. You can find the mentioned article posted on several websites if you have any interest in learning any more fun facts about your group.

Frank has already said on NUMEROUS posts, that Oggi is not a credible source. You need not go any further. Anyone reading here, it's as plain as day.

May I suggest a calming breath? The hatred and jealousy about PMF cannot be good for your health, or sanity. It's rather alarming,actually.

So, to wrap it up in a nutshell. Frank has spoken to Nara on many occasions..He says she's not deaf or mental. That is the point. You may find Oggi creditible, and Candace, who pasted from Oggi. Frank disputes this whole heartily. I do hope this is now clear. I don't know what else poor Frank can do, to make you change your mind. The man has already debunked your belief countless times. Give him a break, already.

 

[quadraginta]

Call it a conspriacy if you wish (though since I doubt if fits the definition I doubt it would be one) but the truth of the matter is that even with both sides of a story agreeing something happened, without seeing the evidence of it occuring for yourself, you can't be 100% sure it really did. With that in mind, how sure can you be when you only have one side and no evidence?

Who said anything about being 100% certain ... about anything?

 

[capealadin]

Disagreeing with Frank doesn't amount to calling him a liar. Don't you disagree with his views about the defendants' innocence?

There is a difference in disagreeing, and believing one story over another. Someone is lying. It's that simple.

Points are discussed here, ad infinatum. To whit: Was it blood, was it dna, were there two knives, did Raf throw Mandt under the bus? Was it defamation, or was it just something repeated. And on and on.

This is a point, that has made it into the news, and repeated as factual. Frank has debunked it, on numerous occasions. And yet, and yet, Halides and Bruce want confirmation. What? Frank's word is not good enough?

I feel fine about disagreeing with certain things. I don't, for instance, believe in the satanic ritual thing.

Condolences..very much so. And, sincerely meant.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Probably because in the earliest of these Cartwheel Threads ... when the subject first came up ... more than a few studies were cited, ones performed to assist forensics for law enforcement as well as for insurance companies, which demonstrated quite irrefutably that glass does indeed fly backwards.

I'm not going to bother searching out those particular posts, not only because I don't feel constrained to abet either your failing memory or your laziness, but also because it is so simple to find more.

A quick Google search easily supplied this, this, and this. I'll leave you to find as many more as you like on your own.

Those studies refer to tiny fragments which travel a very short distance. If Rudy pitched the rock from a couple of meters away, as seems likely, there is absolutely no reason to think either that he would get glass on himself or that there would be easily visible glass below the broken window.

I realise you're aching to finda decent gotcha, but we've been over this ground very thoroughly and you know it. The pattern of broken glass does not support the staged break-in hypothesis as Massei claimed, and it's completely consistent with a real break-in.

 

[Mary_H]

There is a difference in disagreeing, and believing one story over another. Someone is lying. It's that simple.

Points are discussed here, ad infinatum. To whit: Was it blood, was it dna, were there two knives, did Raf throw Mandt under the bus? Was it defamation, or was it just something repeated. And on and on.

This is a point, that has made it into the news, and repeated as factual. Frank has debunked it, on numerous occasions. And yet, and yet, Halides and Bruce want confirmation. What? Frank's word is not good enough?

I feel fine about disagreeing with certain things. I don't, for instance, believe in the satanic ritual thing.

Condolences..very much so. And, sincerely meant.

Thank you, capealadin. One thing I have never doubted is your sincerity. (By the way, I think capealdain is referring to the fact that my mother passed away earlier this year -- it's okay; it was to be expected at her age.)

In all my time writing about this case, I have called other posters liars only twice. Almost always, people believe what they are writing, even when it is nonsense. There would be no point in deliberately lying about the Nara story. As halides1 pointed out, the time of death is the issue, and if Nara said she heard a scream two hours after the time of death, she can be an absolutely brilliant person and still be mistaken.

Paul Ciolino made a good point at the Seattle U symposium, too -- he said that the Perugian police never went to the apartment buildings across the street from the cottage (where Nara lived) to ask if anyone had seen or heard anything the night of the crime.

The prosecution's case would be much stronger if two dozen people had heard the unearthly scream Nara heard. One ear witness out of hundreds of potential ear witnesses is pretty weak. I think it's human nature to look for what might be "wrong" with that witness.

 

[LondonJohn]

Probably because in the earliest of these Cartwheel Threads ... when the subject first came up ... more than a few studies were cited, ones performed to assist forensics for law enforcement as well as for insurance companies, which demonstrated quite irrefutably that glass does indeed fly backwards.

I'm not going to bother searching out those particular posts, not only because I don't feel constrained to abet either your failing memory or your laziness, but also because it is so simple to find more.

A quick Google search easily supplied this, this, and this. I'll leave you to find as many more as you like on your own.

When thin plate glass is struck by a large object moving at relatively low velocity (less than 100mph), the glass will fragment inwards, with chunks of the broken pane falling vertically downwards. Minute (<1mm) particles of glass will indeed fly backwards - these particles are the result of the glass fragmenting at the fracture points, and a trampoline effect (on a very small scale) will send some of these particles backwards.

So while it's incorrect to say that no glass flies backwards, it's correct to say that no large pieces of glass will fly backwards. The articles you cite support the well-known forensic technique of carefully examining the clothing and hair of break-in suspects: if glass was broken with a hand-held implement (e.g. a hammer), then it's likely that tiny fragments of glass will have rebounded back onto the suspect.

I see absolutely no evidence that the "crack" Perugia forensics team got on their hands and knees and minutely examined the grass/mud below Filomena's window for sub-mm particles of glass fragment. I certainly see no evidence that they sifted the ground. Rather, I see evidence that they used that very area to mill around, smoke cigarettes and make phone calls while the cottage was being examined. Heck, I haven't even seen any detailed police photographs of that area of ground (the ground only seems to be visible in wider shots of the outer wall).

Further evidence in support of the police's incompetence in this issue is that the Massei Report only mentions the very basic testimony of one of the forensics team (Gioia Brocci), who merely stated that the grass didn't look like it had been trampled. Further stellar "reasoning" from Massei follows: if there were large pieces of glass lying on the (wide) windowsill, then why hadn't similar size pieces been propelled further backwards onto the ground below?

 

[capealadin]

Right Mary. But, no matter which way one looks at it...in referring to Nara, that Oggi article was written to discredit her. Calling her almost deaf, and mentally ill..is certainly a way to discredit someone. And, it was those two things that were repeated. It was those things that Frank debunked. The outcome of what the time was, or if it was possible to hear anything, will be finally decided at a later date. I hope you understand now where I'm coming from. Is it right, to suddenly take an article, and having it repeated, as verbatim..when brought forward..to prove a point for one's side, and then dismiss all other cites, from other newspapers, or magazines..as lies, and rubbish.? when pertaining to the opposite side?

It should be sauce for the goose then...No?

For myself, I have heard things, aand others not. It can depend on the TV being on, music playing..or conversing with others. It was a holiday weekend. Have the police said they haven't questioned others? Did they rely on people coming forward of their own volition? Did some just not want to get involved? Their are many plausible scenarios.

My point here is solely about an article, that was published. The article has been refuted by Frank. He has spoken to Nara, and, in all honesty, anyone quoting that article, and now that it has been proved to be false, should make a retraction. IMO.

 

[Matthew Best]

i am only talking about facts, which have been disputed.

So is everybody.

 

[capealadin]

So is everybody.

Right. And either Frank is telling the truth..or Oggi is lying. And anyone choosing Oggi's version, has made the decision who the liar is.

 

[Chris C]

As I understand it, the police claim there was no glass under the window but do not claim they searched the area thoroughly, and took no photographs whatsoever of the area under the window that might prove or disprove the claim.

The pro-guilt argument is that lack of glass on the ground under the window proves that the window was not broken by a slow-mving projectile launched from outside. This is not backed up either by evidence or by physics. When glass is broken by a slow-moving projectile most of the glass goes in the direction of the projectile and a moderate amount of glass falls straight down. Glass doesn't fly backwards and I'm not sure why anyone ever thought it should.



Filomena stated that there was glass under her clothes as well as on top of them. That pretty much puts an end to the prosecution story that the break-in must have been faked because all the glass was on top of her clothes.



I'm not quite sure what aspect of the story this question refers to so I will leave it to others.



There are definitely things on the wall that could well be marks left by a climber. Whether they are or not can reasonably be disputed, however I don't think a rational and informed participant could claim that the state of the wall is inconsistent with someone climbing in.



I guess the PMF community and the Knox case are a bit like our own little Milgram experiment. It's frightening what conformity and confirmation bias can do to people you thought were rationalists.

I have often wondered how much the investigators are telling the truth on the broken window. For one, they act like they noticed all this incriminating evidence that points to the broken window being staged. Yet you have to wonder how truthful they are. These investigators are supposed to be trained individuals and they noticed all these things that suggested it was staged. Yet a 1st day on the job investigator would know to take pictures of suspicious things. I mean seriously, they claim to notice no broken glass outside the window yet they decided not to record this evidence or take pictures eventhough this is suppose to suggest the to them that the window was broken while it was open and not closed.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Right. And either Frank is telling the truth..or Oggi is lying. And anyone choosing Oggi's version, has made the decision who the liar is.

I think on the fence is the place to be for this one. Usually reliable sources are disagreeing so some of them must be wrong.

That said you need to be more careful to distinguish between lies and mistakes.

(Might it be a sign of a reversal in the Italian zeitgeist if it turns out that we are seeing liars coming out of the woodwork to support Amanda and Raffaele, where previously liars came out of the woodwork to point the finger at them?).

 

[Antony]

Matthew put it pretty well. Judging something purely on one side of the story is not a good idea, both sides need to be presented and evaluated. My problem is that what little one side has currently presented is very hard to evaluate without doing huge amounts of wading through what is often meaningless arguement.

That is a measured response, and you are perfectly entitled to reserve judgement on the whole issue while observing the big contrast between the case made on each side. IAC, it is refreshing to see a rational view taken by someone not actively arguing for innocence; and I wouldn't necessarily want you to make yourself subject to being dismissed as a "Foaker" by certain participants in this forum.

The answer to what will convince me is evidence. The problem is that those that claim to have evidence don't seem to be inclined to share it in more than a "I said it so it's true". When I requested links to images of the area below the broken window, I was told in no uncertain terms that what I was asking for was inconsiderate to the victim's family and that I should just take the poster's word for what was in them. This I found very strange considering that there are photos of the actual murder room easily available, something I would consider to be far more distressing than photos of a bit of dirt under a window.

Regrettably, some of the same people who invoke "respect for the victim's family" have also posted verifiably false information.

So I am left in a position where I have disputing positions and haven't got the evidence to determine which is true and which isn't.

Was there glass under the window? I have heard different claims on this.
Was there glass on the clothing in the room? Again different claims.
Was the room with the broken window disturbed before the police arrived?
Where there marks on the wall? Again this is in dispute.

These aren't the only questions, but often my knowledge of the case is not enough to even know the right questions to ask.

On the subject of the allegedly "staged" break-in, this is an example of where the innocence side on this forum is prepared to present evidence (which IMO confirms that the break-in was genuine), while the pro-guilt side cannot do more than make unsupported assertions.

Indeed, the nature of the break-in evidence isn't IMO absolutely conclusive either way in terms of AK's and RS's guilt or innocence, but more significantly I think it is a huge indictment of the police investigation, the lack of impartiality of the court in the original trial, and the objectivity of those arguing for guilt. The same conclusion runs through almost every aspect of the evidence in dispute in this discussion

So in the end while I find the claims of innocent compelling, I have to note that there are people who I generally respect here that don't, and as such I have to wonder what I am missing that they find compelling towards guilt. The problem is trying to discover that.

I too find it mystifying why so many apparently intelligent people should stake such personal emotional capital in upholding what appears to me to be an unsustainable intellectual position. Doubly so in that they are arguing for keeping 2 young people in prison for the major part of their lives on such tenuous evidence.

(ETA: ) I can only guess that they have a trust, in principle, in the soundness of the justice system; and the mental adjustment necessary to recognise the catastrophic failures by the police and courts in this case, is simply too great. That is why we see some posters expressing incredulity that there could be what they see as a "conspiracy" within the police department, while other declare that they will agree with whatever the courts decide.

 

[Justinian2]

Could you please source these claims? Previously I have been told that the drives were plugged into the wrong voltage, meaning that the circuit boards and possibly drive motors fried, but this would mean that the platters still contained the information, which would seem to make more sense since I seem to recall the claim being made that the defense either did, or requested that the disks be sent to the US to see if anything could be found on them.

That's true. That's what I said.

Anybody that removed the disks would have known enough not to have fried three disk drives and even if he was that stupid, the data could have been recovered. I have recovered data from formatted and departitioned hard drives. I had to buy a special program to do that. The data can be recovered if this disk is not fragmented. If the disk is fragmented, the data will come back in pieces - 256 words/bytes at a time.

Even if you plug the disk cable in upside down you will not fry the disk drives.

The disks have to be deliberately destroyed as simple stupidity is not sufficient.

 

[Chris C]

Those studies refer to tiny fragments which travel a very short distance. If Rudy pitched the rock from a couple of meters away, as seems likely, there is absolutely no reason to think either that he would get glass on himself or that there would be easily visible glass below the broken window.

I realise you're aching to finda decent gotcha, but we've been over this ground very thoroughly and you know it. The pattern of broken glass does not support the staged break-in hypothesis as Massei claimed, and it's completely consistent with a real break-in.

Also depending on how the glass broke there very well could be no blowback. Generally your greatest chance of blowback happens when the window shatters. Which is not what happened in this case. Yet most people seem to believe that only the glass where the rock hit the window broke and that a large portion of the window glass was pulled out and set on the window sill. Thus leaving only a small portion of the window that actually broke from the impact of the rock.

 

[LondonJohn]

That's true. That's what I said.

Anybody that removed the disks would have known enough not to have fried three disk drives and even if he was that stupid, the data could have been recovered. I have recovered data from formatted and departitioned hard drives. I had to buy a special program to do that. The data can be recovered if this disk is not fragmented. If the disk is fragmented, the data will come back in pieces - 256 words/bytes at a time.

Even if you plug the disk cable in upside down you will not fry the disk drives.

The disks have to be deliberately destroyed as simple stupidity is not sufficient.

We have to add into this the fact that the hard drives were apparently examined by specialist police computer technicians at the Police HQ of the capital of Umbria. Not only that, this was an extremely high-profile murder case, so it's reasonable to suggest that matters were being directed from the highest levels within the police department (and, by extension, one might imagine that the senior officers assigned their "best men" to the case - or at least not their "worst men").

Yet we're supposed to believe that this potentially critically important evidence was mishandled by a numpty who didn't even realise that hot-plugging the drives could damage them considerably. It just doesn't add up.