Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

Read tonight on one of the hate sites that the one remaining scientist type there thinks the independent expert report is correct. So far everyone else just ignored his comment...as if he never said anything. Strange that.

Yeah, the reaction is to plough on with the confirmation bias and blinkered "I've-made-my-mind-up-already" nonsense. I wonder if people think that inventing bogus new words like "contamipeak" lends some sort of equally-bogus credibility to their positions? The Conti/Vecchiotti report is essentially robust and utterly defensible; my opinion is that not only will it result in the knife and bra clasp being ruled inadmissible, but also it will call into question other evidence that was collected by the same "crack" forensics team.

 

[RoseMontague]

There are many other errors in this article, but I'd like to pick out just one more. Maundy repeats the myth that describes Filomena's window as "in full view of the road" and the balcony as "at the rear of the cottage". In fact, Filomena's window and the balcony were both clearly visible from the road - Filomena's window to people travelling west-east, and the balcony to people travelling east-west. But these are the only two possible points of entry (all the other windows have iron grills, and there is also a very steep drop off at the rear of the cottage). As I've argued before, I think it's reasonable to suggest that a burglar would sacrifice the marginal privacy gain associated with the balcony in return for a far quicker, easier and safer escape route in the event of detection.

Not only is the balcony in view from the road on the other side but there is also another flat that appears to be in full view of the balcony. I have always wondered about this and the argument that the balcony was hidden. Was this other residence occupied? What am I missing? If I were breaking in I wouldn't chose the balcony because someone looking out their kitchen window next door might see me. Can anyone help me out with my question?

 

[Antony]

Then he has to explain away the fresh dent and inlaid glass shards on and in the inner (white) shutter. Opppps bet he ignores that.

Oh ... this was part of the staging. After breaking the window, AK and RS added the dent and the shards of glass in exactly the right place to make it look as if the window was broken from the outside.

This is the beauty of the "staged" break-in and clean-up theory: it can't be falsified because all evidence contradicting it would have been arranged that way afterwards as part of the staging. Meanwhile any random detail of the scene which seems "unlikely" is evidence that the break-in could not have been genuine.

It's a bit like Creation stories: all of the evidence of fossils, carbon dating and the appearance of an expanding universe were part of the way the world was created within the last 10,000 years - added by the Devil to lead us astray from the true understanding of God's marvellous handiwork.

 

[LondonJohn]

Not only is the balcony in view from the road on the other side but there is also another flat that appears to be in full view of the balcony. I have always wondered about this and the argument that the balcony was hidden. Was this other residence occupied? What am I missing? If I were breaking in I wouldn't chose the balcony because someone looking out their kitchen window next door might see me. Can anyone help me out with my question?

I think that building in the foreground is an unoccupied semi-derelict outbuilding. But the other thing to note is that the tree in the photo is deciduous, and would have had no leaves on November 1st 2007. Therefore the view of the balcony from the road would be virtually unobstructed. In addition, the balcony could clearly be seen from many of the flats in the apartment buildings above and behind the car park.

 

[Antony]

Read tonight on one of the hate sites that the one remaining scientist type there thinks the independent expert report is correct. So far everyone else just ignored his comment...as if he never said anything. Strange that.

It's striking, really: everything there is a parody of what we see here - the C&V report is on trial, and being pulled apart on the basis of the attacks made by Stefanoni, Comodi and the other prosecution scientists, which of course are taken at face value at all times.

Do you have a link to this dissenting voice? Is it the .org or .net version? It might be amusing to see how long it is before dread words "thanks for stopping by" come up on the screen.

 

[RoseMontague]

I think that building in the foreground is an unoccupied semi-derelict outbuilding. But the other thing to note is that the tree in the photo is deciduous, and would have had no leaves on November 1st 2007. Therefore the view of the balcony from the road would be virtually unobstructed. In addition, the balcony could clearly be seen from many of the flats in the apartment buildings above and behind the car park.

yep found in the walkaround vid


btw another close inspection of the glass on the grass

 

[RoseMontague]

I think that building in the foreground is an unoccupied semi-derelict outbuilding. But the other thing to note is that the tree in the photo is deciduous, and would have had no leaves on November 1st 2007. Therefore the view of the balcony from the road would be virtually unobstructed. In addition, the balcony could clearly be seen from many of the flats in the apartment buildings above and behind the car park.

SA took this pic on 1 November as well, whether it hides the balcony or not is a matter of opinion.

 

[LondonJohn]

SA took this pic on 1 November as well, whether it hides the balcony or not is a matter of opinion.

Are you sure that this photo was taken on the 1st November? Consider another photo, taken in mid-winter:



This photo clearly shows the same tree with no foliage - and many of the trees in the ravine behind the cottage are similarly defoliated. Now of course this second photo was probably taken much more into the depth of winter (as evidenced by the snow on the ground), but it clearly shows which trees are deciduous. And in non-tropical climates, deciduous trees almost always shed their leaves in September/October*, and regrow foliage in March-May. I therefore find it hard to believe that on the 1st November, not only would that particular tree still be in full foliage, but apparently (as seen in the first photo) all of the deciduous trees visible in the ravine would also be in full foliage. To me, this indicates either that 1) the photo was taken on 1st November 2010, but that the climatic conditions in Perugia that summer led to an unusually late defoliation that year; or b) the photo was taken much earlier in the year than 1st November.

* in the northern hemisphere. The equivalent in the southern hemisphere would be March/April.

 

[RoseMontague]

Are you sure that this photo was taken on the 1st November? Consider another photo, taken in mid-winter:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_402374e4100973ad1d.jpg[/qimg]

This photo clearly shows the same tree with no foliage - and many of the trees in the ravine behind the cottage are similarly defoliated. Now of course this second photo was probably taken much more into the depth of winter (as evidenced by the snow on the ground), but it clearly shows which trees are deciduous. And in non-tropical climates, deciduous trees almost always shed their leaves in September/October*, and regrow foliage in March-May. I therefore find it hard to believe that on the 1st November, not only would that particular tree still be in full foliage, but apparently (as seen in the first photo) all of the deciduous trees visible in the ravine would also be in full foliage. To me, this indicates either that 1) the photo was taken on 1st November 2010, but that the climatic conditions in Perugia that summer led to an unusually late defoliation that year; or b) the photo was taken much earlier in the year than 1st November.

* in the northern hemisphere. The equivalent in the southern hemisphere would be March/April.

I am certain that SA is not being tricky here. The outbuilding in this pic looks like a 2 story deal, you have any other pics?

 

[RoseMontague]

It doesn't look like that tree blocks this view in any case. Was it taken from the road?

 

[LondonJohn]

It doesn't look like that tree blocks this view in any case. Was it taken from the road?

I think that second pic was taken from the inclined walkway that leads from the upper level of the car park. But you're correct to say that the tree doesn't really block the view of the balcony from the road whether it's in leaf or not. But if there were no leaves on the tree, the view would be even more unobstructed. Plus there are two different opportunities to view the balcony for someone travelling east-west along Viale Sant'Antonio - there is a perfectly clear, direct view of the balcony for a long time from the road between about 50 and 150 years away from the cottage, and there is a second view of the balcony as one passes the cottage.

 

[LondonJohn]

I am certain that SA is not being tricky here. The outbuilding in this pic looks like a 2 story deal, you have any other pics?

It is a 2-level building. If you have Google Earth, you can go onto Streetview along Viale Sant'Antonio and get clear views of the outbuilding. Here's a grab:




Travelling along Viale Sant'Antonio in Streetview also demonstrates just how visible the balcony is from the road.

 

[RoseMontague]

It is a 2-level building. If you have Google Earth, you can go onto Streetview along Viale Sant'Antonio and get clear views of the outbuilding. Here's a grab:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_402374e4107b78d914.jpg[/qimg]


Travelling along Viale Sant'Antonio in Streetview also demonstrates just how visible the balcony is from the road.

Thanks LJ. This is clearly visible, leaves on tress or not.

 

[Fine]

* * *
All-in-all, the "staging" hypothesis just doesn't stand up. More than that, it's a classic piece of circular reasoning. Add in some stunningly poor logical deduction (e.g. an intruder can't have been standing below the window at any time because the police didn't find any evidence of such a presence), and it all adds up to a completely unsupportable theory. The truth is that the evidence is entirely consistent with a real break-in.

* * *
_____________________

John,

One piece of evidence is not only consistent with, but positively supports, a genuine break-in. The rock appears to have been thrown exactly once, from the outside. The large rock is known to be brittle. It was found broken into several pieces, some tiny, as seen here. Look closely:

According to Massei, the lovebirds, within Filomena's bedroom. first threw it through the glass window pane, then picked it up from the floor, near their feet, and then dropped it into the shopping bag, found as seen in the photograph above. But being this brittle shouldn't the rock have broken when it was first thrown through the window by the lovebirds, leaving rock fragments at the lovebirds' feet? Throwing it through the window, striking the wooden blind behind the window, and falling to the floor would have shocked the rock more than by being just dropped into the shopping bag. So,.... where are them rock fragments---elsewhere on the floor of Filomena's bedroom--- that would have resulted from the rock being thrown through the window by the lovebirds? There aren't any. It didn't happen.

///

 

[Supernaut]

A few more details in the timeline of Guede’s attack on Meredith.

It isn't difficult to figure out how Guede came to leave his footprint on the bathmat;

He inflicted the knife wounds while standing over Meredith, probably straddling her, after she had dropped or been forced on to her hands and knees (as per Hendry).

She then collapsed into a completely prone position, but with her remaining strength she grabbed and held tightly onto Guede's right shin for several seconds before he could extricate himself, her neck pressing against it and the arterial wound soaking, in fact practically saturating his pant leg in blood.

Think about it; it’s actually hard to imagine her NOT doing this as he stood over her, it would be what anyone would instinctively do in such circumstances - an attempt both to defend against further blows and a desperate need to physically cling to another living soul (even the attacker himself) as her life-blood literally ebbed.

Guede had no choice but to rinse the fabric before he left the flat because it would have been smearing on his WHITE Nike trainer, which even at night would have been extremely conspicuous (and would have drawn any observer’s eye to the copious amount of blood on the fabric itself).

However, having placed his shin and foot in the bidet or shower, he inevitably ended up with bloody water covering his bare foot and made the print when he set it down on the mat, probably as he rinsed his shoe (which he might have removed in Meredith’s room and carried to the bathroom, reaching it before any blood reached the sole of his bare foot, perhaps having turned or rolled up the hem of his jeans).

Incidentally, several, including myself, have tried to point out that it’s obvious that only Guede’s forefoot is discernable in the print, the rest is obscured by soaking from the hem of his jeans.

 

[Kaosium]

This is someone who has expended some 2,500 words making an "argument" which is badly-reasoned, convoluted and deeply compromised by confirmation bias.

Have you ever tried to assemble a rational, coherent guilt theory? You must sell your soul in the process!

Thus I've some sympathy. Though I must add at this point as I always do: if they wanted to stage a break in these stoned college kids could just have thrown a rock through the window and opened up the window from the outside, what kind of stoned kid would go to all this trouble to stage a break-in any other way that could be 'caught out' by the keystone cops anyway? Especially some convoluted way when they were so stoned they were in a murderous rage? That's the 'reconstruction experiment' that needs to be done. Take a hundred college kids and give them wacky-weed and see what percentage start knifing people and which ones head for the munchables and become entranced by Spongebob Squarepants. Reasonable doubt right there!

There's a cosmic disconnect with me regarding this picture though, and frankly that's why I didn't become much interested in the 'staged' break-in until later in the threads. I looked at it and could not believe anyone would even attempt the argument that window was unclimbable. Rudy was an athlete, he was known for breaking into windows well above ground. He could do what amounts to little more than an overhand pull-up. Hell, he has the wall to help. This would have been easy! Just look at the damned picture!

I also wanted to add that the 'trial court' didn't decide the window couldn't be climbed. The jurors weren't given a survey after the trial and asked to check off the items they found most convincing, to improve the performance of the Court--feedback being crucial! They voted guilty, and then Massei et al had to write his Motivations Report and attempt to make everything he could muster sound as guilty as he could, he didn't even put some things the prosecution argued in, no doubt because some things he couldn't figure out how to even get to 'possible' so he could cheat and go to probable when he thought you weren't looking.

I don't even think Massei mentioned it, I recall Machiavelli saying something to that effect, and I couldn't find it in a quick look, do you know why? The 'staged' break-in doesn't even get a listing in the table of contents! That's how 'important' it was considered by the presiding judge. It has taken on an unholy prominence amongst some due to repetition and the fact it's easy to sow confusion with online, but Ron Hendry who actually knows what he's doing took it apart piece by piece. Personally I think the following picture with the fresh impact mark with the shattered glass on the outside of the inside shutter pretty damned convincing evidence the rock probably came through the window from the outside.

Then there's the glass pattern, which wasn't made by any wacky scheme where they threw the rock through the window from the inside sideways across the plane of the opening. At least not in this earth's atmosphere, according to the glass pattern:

These college kids had supposedly just murdered someone, high as banshees, and they're going to come up with all this nonsense simply to 'save themselves the trouble' of just leaving the door open (like it was anyway) or just throwing a rock through the window, climbing up and opening the window, and brushing away the glass? As for the glass on the ledge corresponding to where the outside shutter would be when closed, maybe the shutters open and closed throughout the night with the wind?

 

[Kestrel]

Thanks LJ. This is clearly visible, leaves on tress or not.

The nearest streetlight to the cottage is on the side with the balcony, illuminating that area at night. As do the headlights of cars approaching from that direction. Filimena's window is in the shadows and harder to see.

 

[RoseMontague]

The nearest streetlight to the cottage is on the side with the balcony, illuminating that area at night. As do the headlights of cars approaching from that direction. Filimena's window is in the shadows and harder to see.

Another good point, and so it is:

 

[RoseMontague]

Another quote on the shutters:

Maori- Volevo fare la domanda che le ha fatto prima l'Avvocato Bongiorno in relazione alla finestra della sua stanza, la sera. Lei si ricorda come ha lasciato la
finestra la sera del giorno.
Rom- Io mi ricordo che la finestra era chiusa.
Maori- Come l'ha lasciata, se era chiusa, se ha apposto delle persiane?
Rom- Io mi ricordo che la finestra era chiusa.
Maori- Allora nel verbale del 3 dicembre 2007 (Fuori microfono) esattamente, questo glielo.
Rom- Sì, io ricordo sinceramente che chiusi la finestra.
PRESIDENTE - Scusi quando lei dice chiusi la finestra significa l'infisso dove c'è il vetro e anche la persiana, dice tutto insieme, oppure.
Rom - La persiana l'avevo chiusa e.
PRESIDENTE - Agganciata?
Rom - La persiana esterna sì era chiusa sicuro.
PRESIDENTE - Ed il vetro?
Maori - Non mi ricordo se il vetro lo lasciai un po' appoggiato, ma mi pare di averlo proprio chiuso.
PRESIDENTE - Prego Avvocato.
Maori - Allora invece nel verbale del 3 dicembre, a pagina 24 lei dice di aver chiuso le finestre, di aver accostato le persiane senza attaccarle, di aver chiuso solo il buio di destra e non anche quello di sinistro perché (fuori microfono) si ricorda di questo?
Rom - Posso sinceramente, siccome quel verbale è stato fatto nell'immediatezza dei fatti posso confermare quello perché era più fresco come ricordo.

 

[RandyN]

It's striking, really: everything there is a parody of what we see here - the C&V report is on trial, and being pulled apart on the basis of the attacks made by Stefanoni, Comodi and the other prosecution scientists, which of course are taken at face value at all times.

Do you have a link to this dissenting voice? Is it the .org or .net version? It might be amusing to see how long it is before dread words "thanks for stopping by" come up on the screen.

Here it is....

btc2008



Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 5:27 pm

Posts: 478

Highscores: 1
Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:28 am Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 25 -


stilicho wrote:

Science isn't magic. If conclusion B doesn't follow precisely from test hypothesis A then everyone in the courtroom has the ability to demand why not.




You are assuming that B is the conclusion you want to find. Science is not like that all the time. Magic science is..that is CSI science, or people who don't work in lab think how science SHOULD work, but it doesn't.

Speaking from experience, even the most educated hypothesis often results in a "C" or even "D" scenario.

After thinking, I've reevaluated my critique of the C&V report, and concluded, for the most part, that their criticisms were valid, at least, scientifically--speaking as one.




Now the fur really seems to be flying....Stiltacho and Machine are grasping at strawmen...

One wrong theme is the Perugia police actually studied the evidence and came up with Rudy Guede on their own ...which is exactly wrong. Until the friend Giancomo walked into the police station and said he thinks RG may be involved in the Kercher murder the Perugia police had no clue who made the hand print....the PMSers oppps PMFers forget the first unrecorded call by Rudy to Giancomo...It seems the Flying squad crashed on that one little tid bit..

And Harry Rag is still spouting the same ole non sense about AK lied and poor Diya sat in jail...lets see...his next rant is due soon ...will it be "staged" break in?

It seems they are imploding just like the prosecution case...

Id link the whole page but last time I did that they spanked me here...Its the Piggy Ganong site.