Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fuji said:
I do not know why he would do so, but I do know that he has done so.

A belief in "conspiracy theories" is not requisite for understanding this simple fact; rather, all that is required is a basic understanding of graphical perspective, shadow, and simple geometry.

This page provides an excellent, in-depth analysis of the principles of shadow formation. Most important for a basic understanding are the first two rules enumerated:

"1. Light appears to emanate as straight line "rays" from the surface area of a light source. Light appears to follow a straight line path from its origin at the light source. (This corresponds to perspective fact 1.) The origin is physical — it has a measurable surface area — and light radiates from all parts of the surface.

2. Light appears to radiate from the physical center of the surface or volume of the light source. When constructing perspective edges, light always appears to emanate from the point at the center of the volume of the light source (if it radiates in all directions) or from the center of its surface image (if it is a directed light or reflecting surface).

As a corollary, all shadow edges can be constructed as light rays from a point light sources. That is, the shape and edges of a shadow can be constructed on the image plane as if all light emanated from a single point on the image plane."

Put simply, there does not exist a single point on the image plane of Bruce's picture which can create the pattern of shadow as depicted. Although a camera's flash does not constitute a true point light source, as it does possess a not insignificant diameter, the source diameter is only a relevant concern when considering the shadow's penumbra, as will be discussed below.

You can easily confirm this for yourself by looking at flash photographs you may have taken. Most cameras with a built-in flash unit will house the unit in the upper left or right corner of the camera. As a result, flash pictures taken with these cameras will result in images in which the projected shadows from nearly all foreground objects will consistently be cast in one direction only - either down and to the right if the flash is in the upper left (from the photographer's perspective), or down and to the left if the flash is in the upper right. This page contains a diagram closely approximating the first situation described (i.e. flash in upper left).

In Bruce's image, the shadow simulated to the right side of his head suggests a point source to the right of and slightly below the optical axis. However, the shadow simulated to side of his left arm suggests a point source to the left of and slightly above the optical axis. These are mutually exclusive patterns - a single point source cannot be in two locations simultaneously!

Furthermore, the penumbrae simulated in this image are also indicators of its artificial nature. The width of the penumbra is directly proportional to the shadow distance (It is also directly proportional to the diameter of the light source. However, a camera flash is a much closer approximation of a point source than, say, a fluorescent light which, with a much larger source diameter, will cast correspondingly much "fuzzier" shadows.) In other words, the nearer an object is to the surface upon which its shadow is projected, the sharper will be its delineation.

In Bruce's image, the shadow from his left arm is simulated as projected on to the asphalt parking surface. The part of the shadow at the bottom of the image (near Bruce's left wrist) is being projected on to a surface which is ostensibly several meters closer to Bruce than that part of the parking lot onto which the shadow just beneath his left shirtsleeve is projected. We would therefore expect the shadow near his wrist to be much more delineated than that near his shirtsleeve - yet the exact opposite is the case! The shadows near his shirtsleeve are actually more clearly defined than those near his wrist.

Taken together, the impossibility of a point light source able to create the observed shadow pattern, and the violation of the penumbra width formula, clearly show that this is a doctored image, and is not - and cannot be - the result of an individual taking a simple snapshot of Fisher and Shay standing in front of Gino's East, as Bruce has implied.
Click to expand...

What are you?
 
Fuji said:
Hi Bruce. What equipment did your wife use to take the picture recently linked to on PMF, of you and Steve Shay in front of Gino's East, that you have oh-so-playfully altered here to include Mr. Squarepants? Was she using auto settings? If not, do you know what f-stop and shutter speed she used? Was it photoshopped or substantially altered in any way before you posted it to Facebook? I see you have made light of the issue here, but I have yet to see any denial from you that this is in fact a photoshopped image.
Click to expand...

I have no details on the camera because it was Steve's camera. The photo was not photoshopped but please feel free to continue embarrassing yourself with such claims.

I would post the photos from inside the restaurant but they include my wife and children. If I posted those then you would claim that I photoshopped the kids into the photos because there is no way that a minimum wage mall clerk could possibly have such an amazing family. Of course you would be wrong again but what does it matter to you.

You and your group can continue to spread all the lies about Bruce Fisher that you like. It means nothing at this point. You cannot disprove anything that I have written so you are left with nothing else but childish attacks. PMF has been fully exposed for what it is.

This case will soon be over, Amanda and Raffaele will soon be free, and all you and your group will be left with is your anger.


When you have time maybe you can post up what PMF has done to preserve the memory of Meredith Kercher. Just one or two examples will be fine. Any college funds set up in her name? Any memorials created? Any charities set up to help victims of attack? Come on Fuji, anything at all from the group claiming to be dedicated to Meredith Kercher?

Nope. You and your group are a fraud.
 
Last edited:
Fuji said:
I do not know why he would do so, but I do know that he has done so.

A belief in "conspiracy theories" is not requisite for understanding this simple fact; rather, all that is required is a basic understanding of graphical perspective, shadow, and simple geometry.

This page provides an excellent, in-depth analysis of the principles of shadow formation. Most important for a basic understanding are the first two rules enumerated:

"1. Light appears to emanate as straight line "rays" from the surface area of a light source. Light appears to follow a straight line path from its origin at the light source. (This corresponds to perspective fact 1.) The origin is physical — it has a measurable surface area — and light radiates from all parts of the surface.

2. Light appears to radiate from the physical center of the surface or volume of the light source. When constructing perspective edges, light always appears to emanate from the point at the center of the volume of the light source (if it radiates in all directions) or from the center of its surface image (if it is a directed light or reflecting surface).

As a corollary, all shadow edges can be constructed as light rays from a point light sources. That is, the shape and edges of a shadow can be constructed on the image plane as if all light emanated from a single point on the image plane."

Put simply, there does not exist a single point on the image plane of Bruce's picture which can create the pattern of shadow as depicted. Although a camera's flash does not constitute a true point light source, as it does possess a not insignificant diameter, the source diameter is only a relevant concern when considering the shadow's penumbra, as will be discussed below.

You can easily confirm this for yourself by looking at flash photographs you may have taken. Most cameras with a built-in flash unit will house the unit in the upper left or right corner of the camera. As a result, flash pictures taken with these cameras will result in images in which the projected shadows from nearly all foreground objects will consistently be cast in one direction only - either down and to the right if the flash is in the upper left (from the photographer's perspective), or down and to the left if the flash is in the upper right. This page contains a diagram closely approximating the first situation described (i.e. flash in upper left).

In Bruce's image, the shadow simulated to the right side of his head suggests a point source to the right of and slightly below the optical axis. However, the shadow simulated to side of his left arm suggests a point source to the left of and slightly above the optical axis. These are mutually exclusive patterns - a single point source cannot be in two locations simultaneously!

Furthermore, the penumbrae simulated in this image are also indicators of its artificial nature. The width of the penumbra is directly proportional to the shadow distance (It is also directly proportional to the diameter of the light source. However, a camera flash is a much closer approximation of a point source than, say, a fluorescent light which, with a much larger source diameter, will cast correspondingly much "fuzzier" shadows.) In other words, the nearer an object is to the surface upon which its shadow is projected, the sharper will be its delineation.

In Bruce's image, the shadow from his left arm is simulated as projected on to the asphalt parking surface. The part of the shadow at the bottom of the image (near Bruce's left wrist) is being projected on to a surface which is ostensibly several meters closer to Bruce than that part of the parking lot onto which the shadow just beneath his left shirtsleeve is projected. We would therefore expect the shadow near his wrist to be much more delineated than that near his shirtsleeve - yet the exact opposite is the case! The shadows near his shirtsleeve are actually more clearly defined than those near his wrist.

Taken together, the impossibility of a point light source able to create the observed shadow pattern, and the violation of the penumbra width formula, clearly show that this is a doctored image, and is not - and cannot be - the result of an individual taking a simple snapshot of Fisher and Shay standing in front of Gino's East, as Bruce has implied.
Click to expand...


This lengthy post has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of this thread, and has no place here.

If you had been discussing a photograph that was directly relevant to the case, then that would have been perfectly OK. If, for example, you'd been discussing a photo of the cottage in Perugia that had been artificially altered to make the light on the wall containing Filomena's window appear significantly brighter than it actually was, that would have been relevant and interesting. If you had been been discussing a photo of disco buses that its photographer had repeatedly falsely claimed had been taken on November 1st 2010 (a directly relevant lie, since the intention was to show that the same disco buses would therefore have been running on November 1st 2007), that would have been relevant and interesting.

But a long discussion about whether or not a photo of two men (two men who have no direct involvement in the trial process of Knox and Sollecito) standing outside a pizza restaurant in a Chicago suburb has been digitally altered is unequivocally irrelevant to the topic of this thread. Please take your theories about this photo elsewhere: they don't belong here.
 
Grinder said:
I must say that I have never fully bought that Rudy entered through the window, at least not with a little help. Kokomani was there with a car, multiple cell phones and olives (?). I have always thought he came forward after his vacation in Albania because he knew he had been there with his cell phones and feared the Postal Police would track him down.

Why was he there? He says Rudy asked to rent his car, seemly he was acquainted with him. Kokomani was a drug dealer of some greater significance than Rudy. Could Rudy have owed some money and he and Koko went to the cottage to cash in? Did Koko aid Rudy in getting into the window?

If Koko was associated with the bigger drug dealers even Albanian gangs (I've read they are in Perugia) maybe Rudy has no named him out of fear.
Click to expand...

I often wondered about the dark colored car, that seems to be an ignored point in everyone's theory's and guess's of events.

Rudy made a comment "I can't describe him..." or "I can't say what he looked like..." when talking of the one with the knife.

The reason he "can't" say it may very well be because this is a connected criminal with reaches into the prison grounds, hence Rudy being beaten up as a reminder of this ability, and a reminder not to talk about his accomplice.

Why would a dark colored car be in the driveway, with the gate open, and no humans in it?
Just happens to be the time of the crime....

The Tow Truck driver was innocently ignorant to the importance of his being there.

Unfortnately the police ignored this, instead Edgardo was watching Amanda swivel her hips as professional detective work, the squad burning up hardrives, rubing the bra clasp , miscounting the circles on Rudys bloody shoe patterns,
Stefanoni was obsessed with focusing on Raffaele DNA on the bra clasp, and Mignini was enjoying the media attention... always available for the camera, old Mignini is, he'll have a million dollar book deal when he retires too.

Rudys accomplice...who knows. One things for sure the Perugia Police wont find him.
 
Pardon the language, but why in the hell was Mignini allowed to participate in the appeal and why has he seemingly being allowed to take over for the current prosecutor?
 
Fuji said:
I do not know why he would do so, but I do know that he has done so.

A belief in "conspiracy theories" is not requisite for understanding this simple fact; rather, all that is required is a basic understanding of graphical perspective, shadow, and simple geometry.

<snip>This page[/URL] provides an excellent, in-depth analysis of the principles of shadow formation. Most important for a basic understanding are the first two rules enumerated:

"1. Light appears to emanate as straight line "rays" from the surface area of a light source. Light appears to follow a straight line path from its origin at the light source. (This corresponds to perspective fact 1.) The origin is physical — it has a measurable surface area — and light radiates from all parts of the surface.

2. Light appears to radiate from the physical center of the surface or volume of the light source. When constructing perspective edges, light always appears to emanate from the point at the center of the volume of the light source (if it radiates in all directions) or from the center of its surface image (if it is a directed light or reflecting surface).

As a corollary, all shadow edges can be constructed as light rays from a point light sources. That is, the shape and edges of a shadow can be constructed on the image plane as if all light emanated from a single point on the image plane."

Put simply, there does not exist a single point on the image plane of <snip> which can create the pattern of shadow as depicted. Although a camera's flash does not constitute a true point light source, as it does possess a not insignificant diameter, the source diameter is only a relevant concern when considering the shadow's penumbra, as will be discussed below.

You can easily confirm this for yourself by looking at flash photographs you may have taken. Most cameras with a built-in flash unit will house the unit in the upper left or right corner of the camera. As a result, flash pictures taken with these cameras will result in images in which the projected shadows from nearly all foreground objects will consistently be cast in one direction only - either down and to the right if the flash is in the upper left (from the photographer's perspective), or down and to the left if the flash is in the upper right. <snip>contains a diagram closely approximating the first situation described (i.e. flash in upper left).

In Bruce's image, the shadow simulated to the right side of his head suggests a point source to the right of and slightly below the optical axis. However, the shadow simulated to side of his left arm suggests a point source to the left of and slightly above the optical axis. These are mutually exclusive patterns - a single point source cannot be in two locations simultaneously!

Furthermore, the penumbrae simulated in this image are also indicators of its artificial nature. The <snip>is directly proportional to the shadow distance (It is also directly proportional to the diameter of the light source. However, a camera flash is a much closer approximation of a point source than, say, a fluorescent light which, with a much larger source diameter, will cast correspondingly much "fuzzier" shadows.) In other words, the nearer an object is to the surface upon which its shadow is projected, the sharper will be its delineation.

In Bruce's image, the shadow from his left arm is simulated as projected on to the asphalt parking surface. The part of the shadow at the bottom of the image (near Bruce's left wrist) is being projected on to a surface which is ostensibly several meters closer to Bruce than that part of the parking lot onto which the shadow just beneath his left shirtsleeve is projected. We would therefore expect the shadow near his wrist to be much more delineated than that near his shirtsleeve - yet the exact opposite is the case! The shadows near his shirtsleeve are actually more clearly defined than those near his wrist.

Taken together, the impossibility of a point light source able to create the observed shadow pattern, and the violation of the penumbra width formula, clearly show that this is a doctored image, and is not - and cannot be - the result of an individual taking a simple snapshot of Fisher and Shay standing in front of Gino's East, as Bruce has implied.
Click to expand...


I have an MFA in Cinema from the University of Southern California, where I took numerous compulsory courses in photography and cinematography. I directed a seventeen minute short film in 35 millimeter anamorphic as my thesis film, which played in multiple international film festivals. With my cinematographer, I took meticulous care over the film stocks, lighting schemes, etc., that were employed. I have worked six seasons as a television associate producer and count professional photographers and cinematographers among my close friends.

While I am not a photographer by profession, I have considerably more than a layman's understanding of light, shadow, and the vicissitudes of photography, both film and digital. I do not see anything fishy, as it were, in Bruce Fisher's photo of himself and Steve Shay. The photo looks a bit flat, but this could have everything to do with the stock lens and the available light. Add a potential automatic flash to the scenario and this could increase the rather artificial-looking flatness.

You have been given Steve Shay's email address. Why not email him and inquire of him about the veracity of the photo? If he told you the photo was real, would you believe him?
 
JREF2010 said:
Rudy made a comment "I can't describe him..." or "I can't say what he looked like..." when talking of the one with the knife.

The reason he "can't" say it may very well be because this is a connected criminal with reaches into the prison grounds, hence Rudy being beaten up as a reminder of this ability, and a reminder not to talk about his accomplice.
Click to expand...

This is possible, but IMO the reason that he says he can't describe him is the same reason he says he saw Amanda's silouette outside, instead of "I saw Amanda". It is because neither of them exist, and Rudy was there alone with Meredith.
 
Poppy1016 said:
Pardon the language, but why in the hell was Mignini allowed to participate in the appeal and why has he seemingly being allowed to take over for the current prosecutor?
Click to expand...


Good question. The actual lead prosecutor, Giancarlo Costagliola, has seemingly had an extremely low profile - not only outside the courtroom, but also inside the courtroom. It's highly likely that he will conduct the vast majority of closing arguments for the prosecution, but it's a bit of a mystery why he has allowed Comodi and Mignini to take centre stage in and out of the courtroom up to now.

If I were to hazard a guess, I would guess that Costagliola is bright enough to see what's going on here. I would guess that he can see that Mignini and Comodi presided over a totally botched investigation, and that it was only because they managed to pull the wool over the eyes of a compliant, credulous Massei in the first trial that Knox and Sollecito were found guilty in the first trial. I am guessing that Costagliola might have decided to keep his own hands as clean as possible in this debacle. And I'm therefore guessing that this is why he was probably happy for Mignini to inject himself (unusually and improperly) into the appeal trial, and for Mignini/Comodi to be at the forefront of the prosecution case to date in the appeal.

What would be incredibly telling would be if Costagliola delegated large chunks of the prosecution closing arguments to Comodi and/or Mignini. I think this would be proof positive of my theory. But even if Costagliola does lead the closing argument, that's not necessarily an indication that he feels comfortable doing so.

As for the constant extra-courtroom media utterances by Comodi and Mignini, I think that both of them are becoming increasingly desperate to protect their reputations. I think that they are now both loose cannons, who are circumventing the control of the Prosecutors' Office to advance their own personal agendas. I think that Mignini is at least wise enough to know that his career in the law is about to end, and I strongly suspect that Comodi's recent extraordinary alleged comments (reported by Nick Pisa) about court bias will - if accurate - condemn her to severe professional censure. As I've said before, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Comodi doesn't turn up in court at the time of closing arguments, although the Prosecutors' Office might prefer not to disrupt the trial by removing her from the case at this stage. Either way, I think it's very likely that Comodi will be under investigation for these remarks, whether that investigation happens immediately or after the acquittals.


PS: When it's my birthday, I think I shall resort to announcing this fact pointedly here on the thread, in order to solicit the "Happy Birthday" messages that I crave. I'm quite lonely and insecure, you see :)
 
Last edited:
Thanks LJ
I can't believe that Hellman has allowed Mignini and Comode to participate in this appeal. Is it a point of law that could be brought before the Supreme court? I also see posters stating that Mignini may call into issue the legality of the C&V review. If so, is he questioning Hellman's knowledge of the law? It all just blows my mind.
 
Poppy1016 said:
Thanks LJ
I can't believe that Hellman has allowed Mignini and Comode to participate in this appeal. Is it a point of law that could be brought before the Supreme court? I also see posters stating that Mignini may call into issue the legality of the C&V review. If so, is he questioning Hellman's knowledge of the law? It all just blows my mind.
Click to expand...


I don't think it's the role of the lead judge to appoint or approve the prosecutors in any given trial. I think that this decision is entirely made by the Prosecutors' Office. It appears that it is somewhat codified in the Prosecutors' Office that the investigating prosecutor - who is also usually the lead prosecutor in the first trial - does not participate in the appeal trial prosecution. But it seems that the Prosecutors' Office allowed an exception in this case, for the spurious reason that this was a complex case and that Costagliola would benefit therefore from Mignini's assistance in the appeal trial. The truth however seems to be that Mignini simply insisted on being shoehorned into the appeal trial, and he was forceful enough to get his request granted.

With regard to your specific questions of law, therefore, I think that Mignini's inclusion in the prosecution team is not a matter for the Supreme Court from any perspective. And Mignini's statement on the legality of the DNA review is total nonsense. The defence teams have been continually hampered in their requests for the DNA source data from day one all the way through to the middle of the appeal trial. Furthermore, the defence teams made a number of complaints in this regard to various courts in 2008 and 2009, and made a formal request for a DNA review in 2009 (which was rejected by Massei). Mignini (or any other prosecutor) would be laughed out of the Supreme Court if they tried appealing on these grounds.
 
LondonJohn said:
I see that "The Machine" is still trying to propagate the utter nonsense that he has some "inside source" who has told him with confidence that the outcome of the appeals is that Knox/Sollecito will be found guilty but receive reduced sentences.

Now, notwithstanding the rather obvious fact that if they are found guilty of the same charges there is actually little scope for Hellmann's court to reduce their sentences, this entire claim by "The Machine" is ridiculous. If it were true, it would make a mockery of the justice of this entire appeal trial. It's false, incorrect and fantastical. And since all the available signs point strongly towards Hellmann's court leaning increasingly towards acquittals, it looks even more stupid.

I wonder if this "secret reliable source" is one Sig. Maresca? And I wonder if "The Machine" knows anyone named John or Lyle.........?
Click to expand...

Yes, this guy is on fire today. He repeats the same nonsense over and over again. He's deaf when it comes to discussing the actual, real evidence and the reality that surrounds the current events in the appeal trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.
 
LondonJohn said:
I see that "The Machine" is still trying to propagate the utter nonsense that he has some "inside source" who has told him with confidence that the outcome of the appeals is that Knox/Sollecito will be found guilty but receive reduced sentences.
Click to expand...

Whats up with that? How could anyone know? Hellman and Zanetti and the jurors have all voted already, and sent a journalist an email, who theRagMachine has an email address too?

He did put his foot out there.... if he's wrong he's through, if he's right one will wonder who his Fortune Teller is?
 
JREF2010 said:
Whats up with that? How could anyone know? Hellman and Zanetti and the jurors have all voted already, and sent a journalist an email, who theRagMachine has an email address too?

He did put his foot out there.... if he's wrong he's through, if he's right one will wonder who his Fortune Teller is?
Click to expand...

He claims he believes his sources and so far they were not wrong. They gave him "detailed information" about the verdict in the first trial and the outcome of the C&V report. Sadly, he never shared this info on the main thread with anyone, so no one knows if he actually knew anything.

Now, he claims, he was informed that Knox and Sollecito won't be freed and they will receive reduced sentences.
 
Poppy1016 said:
Thanks LJ
I can't believe that Hellman has allowed Mignini and Comode to participate in this appeal. Is it a point of law that could be brought before the Supreme court? I also see posters stating that Mignini may call into issue the legality of the C&V review. If so, is he questioning Hellman's knowledge of the law? It all just blows my mind.
Click to expand...

Girgha had the same comment that it was very rare, "he'd never seen anything like it"...or some media quote like that.

One person thought it was the prosecutions decision, to force Mignini and Commodi to ride this rotting lie to the end....no one else wanted to try and defend the bizarre evidence. Let them go down with the ship, approach.

Actually I know the real reason...by the way, I have a inside contact that has told me secret things. I cant discuss any of it though. so like I know everything thats going to happen, but I can't tell you. I wont release my sources either. But they are sneaky sources of a already known corrupt system.

I also have the ability to become invisible, but only when people aren't look at me ....
 
Poppy1016 said:
Pardon the language, but why in the hell was Mignini allowed to participate in the appeal and why has he seemingly being allowed to take over for the current prosecutor?
Click to expand...

_______________________________

Poppy,

It's certainly a rare event. The Prosecutors' Office wanted to win this one. Amanda's lawyer, Ghirgha, told Oggi magazine: “I’ve been a lawyer for 35 years and never has this happened to me."

///
 
The photo of Bruce Fisher and me, Steve Shay

The photo taken of Bruce Fisher and me was authentic. I have been a photographer for 30 years, and learned photography from my father, Art Shay, one of America's most famous photojournalists since WWII. As you can see from my thousands of posts on JREF, I am not a newcomer to this forum.

Thank you.

Steve Shay
 
steverino said:
The photo taken of Bruce Fisher and me was authentic. I have been a photographer for 30 years, and learned photography from my father, Art Shay, one of America's most famous photojournalists since WWII. As you can see from my thousands of posts on JREF, I am not a newcomer to this forum.

Thank you.

Steve Shay
Click to expand...


Thanks for that Steve. And congratulations on your campaigning articles in the WSH: history will show that you were right about this sad case all along. I hope that it pays well-earned dividends for your career, and that you have a sense of personal satisfaction at the work you've done on reporting events.

Perhaps now we can all get back to the primary business of discussing the topic of the thread: the trial process of Knox and Sollecito. I'd be interested to hear a case for guilt beyond all reasonable doubt that is in any way coherent and logical - but somehow I don't think any such argument will be forthcoming.
 
JREF2010 said:
Girgha had the same comment that it was very rare, "he'd never seen anything like it"...or some media quote like that.

One person thought it was the prosecutions decision, to force Mignini and Commodi to ride this rotting lie to the end....no one else wanted to try and defend the bizarre evidence. Let them go down with the ship, approach.
Click to expand...

I wonder if it was one of those scenes like in a cartoon, where they said to a room of prosecutors, "OK, who wants to volunteer to take over the Knox case for the appeal". And there were a bunch of sounds like a small jet taking off, and a some small puffs of smoke, and no one was left in the room, except for Mignini and Comodi. And this other guy was in the bathroom, so he got stuck with it.
 
It just occurred to me that Rudy had a reason to stage a break in for every scenario that does not involve a real break in.

He left his DNA inside Meredith! I repeat. He left his DNA inside Meredith!

If he realized or even suspected he left DNA inside Meredith but thought or hoped he had not left any other identifiable evidence of himself he would have a rock solid reason to stage a break in!

So a quick wipe down with a towel to remove any obvious visible traces of himself that he saw, quickly stage a break in, and away he goes.

And since he was acquainted with Meredith he could invent a story such as: 'I had a date with Meredith, we messed around, I left, everything was fine when I left'. And then he goes dancing to demonstrate that it was just a normal night for him. Later he goes to Germany to watch developments so he can adjust his story as required.

About the only scenario where Rudy does not benefit from a staged break in is the one where he actually does break in. But ironically even that benefited him because the prosecution fixated on a staged break in with the belief it would solely implicate Raffaele and Amanda.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom