Continuation Part Six: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Antony]

But no, staging a burglary is not the same as actually breaking trhough the window. What is exposed and inconvenient to a burglar, might be convenient and less exposed for a stager.

I believe the window was chosed by excluding the ones that were "exposed" and less convenient from the point of view of someone inside the house, a person who has a story about being inside the apartment. The other otpions were the window in Amanda's room, easier to climb in, but much more "exposed", she may have to "ransack" her own room and she would have to "notice" that and call the police immediately quite early in the morning.
The same goes for the windows on the balcony and the kitchen window (those actually convenient for a burglar, through which all real break ins occurred), but these would be extremely exposed to the visitor's view. She could not tell about any "mop and shower story" (she needed to tell the mop-and-shower story in the event someone noticed her walking across the city with a mop in the morning).

If you stage a burglary you don't actually clim throuigh a window. You may even do that from the inside. So nobody would catch you while climbing, thus the window is not actully exposed if you don't intend to actually climb through there.

The window was also half closed and there are many other physical elements about the staging besides its being an "illogical" point of entry, btw.

That's very interesting Machiavelli - the problem you have is that the break-in was not staged. All the so-called "evidence" claimed to suggest it was, was made up by the police and the others after the fact, basically on the reasoning "the evidence in the flat doesn't match our narrative of the crime, therefore our culprits must have staged the crime scene to mislead the investigation."

Where are the photographs showing the pattern of glass fragments didn't result from the rock being thrown through the window?

Where are the photographs showing no glass on the ground outside?

Where are the photographs showing no glass under the clothes? Even if there were, where is the proof that the clothes were not on the floor before the murder?

Doesn't it occur to you that a broken window and traces in the murder room (not "discovered" 6 weeks later) belonging just to one person show exactly what they seem to show: a murder committed by a lone intruder?

It's no good claiming that the window was "illogical" for a burglar to choose - it was inconspicuous, in shadow, and an old single-pane window with a faulty shutter; it was also provably easy for a petty thief like Guede to climb up and get in very quickly. All the assertions that it was visible from the street, illuminated and impossible to climb are outright lies.

You want to believe that the break-in was "staged", for your own reasons - not because you have any evidence at all.

 

[Dan O.]

To throw a rock through Filomena's window, Rudy stood at the car park area that protrudes from the side of the road.

Perhaps not from the car park.

vel.hor = const v {velocity of rock hitting window at apex of throw}
dist.hor = integral 0 to t ( vel.hor ) = v t

vel.vert = integral 0 to t ( g ) = g t {vertical velocity at release}
dist.vert = integral 0 to t ( vel.vert) = 1/2 g t^2


dist.hor^2/dist.vert = v^2 t^2 / (1/2 g t^2) = 2 v^2/g

v = 1/2 sqrt (g dist.hor^2 / dist.vert )
​

This imposes a problem with tossing the rock from the car park in that it is impossible for the rock to strike the window at it’s apex. it is of course not absolutely necessary for the rock to be at the apex when it strikes the window but the horizontal velocity must be enough to carry it past the inner sill and if the rock is already on a downward trajectory at that point, this becomes more difficult.

It can also been seen that standing directly below the window doesn’t allow for there to be any horizontal velocity to the rock.

Standing on the ground 3 meters below the window and 2 meters away making a jump shot like a free throw with a release point at 2 meters above ground gives an impact velocity of:

v = 1/2 sqrt (g dist.hor^2 / dist.vert )
= 1/2 sqrt ( 10 * 2 / (3 - 2) ) = ~2.25 m/s
​

From a point 1/2 m further back and 1/2 m up the slope to the car park area we get:

v = 1/2 sqrt ( 10 * 2.5 / (2.5 - 2) ) = ~3.5 m/s
​

 

[acbytesla]

Perhaps not from the car park.

vel.hor = const v {velocity of rock hitting window at apex of throw}
dist.hor = integral 0 to t ( vel.hor ) = v t

vel.vert = integral 0 to t ( g ) = g t {vertical velocity at release}
dist.vert = integral 0 to t ( vel.vert) = 1/2 g t^2


dist.hor^2/dist.vert = v^2 t^2 / (1/2 g t^2) = 2 v^2/g

v = 1/2 sqrt (g dist.hor^2 / dist.vert )
​

This imposes a problem with tossing the rock from the car park in that it is impossible for the rock to strike the window at it’s apex. it is of course not absolutely necessary for the rock to be at the apex when it strikes the window but the horizontal velocity must be enough to carry it past the inner sill and if the rock is already on a downward trajectory at that point, this becomes more difficult.

It can also been seen that standing directly below the window doesn’t allow for there to be any horizontal velocity to the rock.

Standing on the ground 3 meters below the window and 2 meters away making a jump shot like a free throw with a release point at 2 meters above ground gives an impact velocity of:

v = 1/2 sqrt (g dist.hor^2 / dist.vert )
= 1/2 sqrt ( 10 * 2 / (3 - 2) ) = ~2.25 m/s
​

From a point 1/2 m further back and 1/2 m up the slope to the car park area we get:

v = 1/2 sqrt ( 10 * 2.5 / (2.5 - 2) ) = ~3.5 m/s
​

So you had to bring math into the argument Dan. Now everyone is lost.

 

[Supernaut]

re. Formica's certitude that Meredith "never locks her door";

Did she actually say this? Where and when? In actual court testimony? or is it just, like so much else, apocryphal/hearsay?

If she did, the only way she'd know, that I can see, is if she was in the habit of regularly trying her flat-mates' doors. Why would she be doing that?

Equally, I suppose one could ask how Amanda was certain she didn't, although given she and Meredith were peers, were likely sharing their stuff with each other, and their doors were next to each other, it would be less surprising.

ETA - I suppose Formica might actually have been home when Meredith was going out and actually seen her not locking her door a few times. Hard to see how it could have often enough to state categorically that "she never locks her door", though.

Ehem. I've always been remiss when it comes to remembering names (but never faces).

I meant Filomena - another bit-player in this drama/farce/tragedy.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Let's pare away a few more.

The autopsy report contains no evidence against either of the kids. Even if we accept that there must have been more than one killer, it doesn't mean that Rudy killed her with Amanda or Raf involved. Multiple killers opens up the possibility to thousands of people in Perugia - most likely people that Rudy knew well.

The autopsy photos mesh perfectly with the crime scene photos. They show injuries inflicted by a single attacker who held the victim from behind with a small knife in his right hand.

 

[Supernaut]

Having admitted that I'm lazy when it comes to committing people's names to memory along with their faces, I always make sure that I remember and pronounce them properly when I do.

It's the height of insolence to mangle someone's name.

Examples;

Rhian (beautiful Welsh name, emphasis on 1st syllable), a colleague who's name everyone insisted on pronouncing "Ri-anne"

Takagi (TAK-a-gi), a colleague who my fellow Brit ignoramuses (ignorami?) couldn't pronounce any way except Ta-GAH-ki.

 

[Grinder]

The autopsy photos mesh perfectly with the crime scene photos. They show injuries inflicted by a single attacker who held the victim from behind with a small knife in his right hand.

Whether you are absolutely correct or not, my point is that multiple attackers in and of itself means as close to nothing about the kids being involved as possible.

Rather than arguing the details of the autopsy I prefer to argue the foundation of the contention.

This case is filled with arguments against the kids that have no weight not because the basic fact may wrong, but because the conclusion that the fact implicates the kids isn't correct.

If the bath mat print did look more like Raf's than Rudy's that isn't enough, it must match Raf.

If the burglary was staged it must be proven that they staged it.

If there were more than one killer, they must prove that it was them.

If the luminol prints were left that night they must prove that it was Amanda's foot not just compatible.

The defense has spent too much time arguing against such things as multiple killers and not enough time at saying "so what if there were" it wasn't these two and you have no proof.

 

[acbytesla]

Whether you are absolutely correct or not, my point is that multiple attackers in and of itself means as close to nothing about the kids being involved as possible.

Rather than arguing the details of the autopsy I prefer to argue the foundation of the contention.

This case is filled with arguments against the kids that have no weight not because the basic fact may wrong, but because the conclusion that the fact implicates the kids isn't correct.

If the bath mat print did look more like Raf's than Rudy's that isn't enough, it must match Raf.

If the burglary was staged it must be proven that they staged it.

If there were more than one killer, they must prove that it was them.

If the luminol prints were left that night they must prove that it was Amanda's foot not just compatible.

The defense has spent too much time arguing against such things as multiple killers and not enough time at saying "so what if there were" it wasn't these two and you have no proof.

Now I agree with all of this, but I also agree with Charlie. There is little reason to believe that there actually was multiple attackers. In fact the evidence really leads one to believe that there was only a single killer.

As for the bath mat, I've always found it interesting after looking at this print for a long time that I have seen two only two possible footprints to compare with it and I can't conclusively match either to the bathmat. So if we look at another ten other men's footprints are half or more of those also going to appear as possible matches?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Whether you are absolutely correct or not, my point is that multiple attackers in and of itself means as close to nothing about the kids being involved as possible.

Rather than arguing the details of the autopsy I prefer to argue the foundation of the contention.

This case is filled with arguments against the kids that have no weight not because the basic fact may wrong, but because the conclusion that the fact implicates the kids isn't correct.

If the bath mat print did look more like Raf's than Rudy's that isn't enough, it must match Raf.

If the burglary was staged it must be proven that they staged it.

If there were more than one killer, they must prove that it was them.

If the luminol prints were left that night they must prove that it was Amanda's foot not just compatible.

The defense has spent too much time arguing against such things as multiple killers and not enough time at saying "so what if there were" it wasn't these two and you have no proof.

I'm inclined to think no defense argument will prevail in Nencini's court, any more than the Egyptian gov't will concede that the NTSB was right about EgyptAir 990.

ACC is pervasive, and there is no remedy for those who refuse treatment.

 

[GreyFox]

But this kind of question is a second guessing process. Maybe the police could have done such a thought in that moment, "maybe she is wrong" , etc. But from a logical pont of view, it's not really our buisness to know how she could be sure; the only relevant thing is that she declared she felt sure, she appered to be sure, and she later always maintained she's sure that's how Meredith used to behave.
Don't forget Filomena also was told about the blood, she was told she was not answering at the door, knew she was not answering the phone, and she knew she won't be away without the English phone she would use to call her mom, she knew about the 'break in' and strange burglary. She heared Knox's phone call and found it strange and alarming. She understood the thing was very unusual, potentially serious, she understood Meredith could not be out to do some shopping.

Hmmmm OUR ? Can you elaborate who our is referring too in this post Mach ?

 

[acbytesla]

I'm inclined to think no defense argument will prevail in Nencini's court, any more than the Egyptian gov't will concede that the NTSB was right about EgyptAir 990.

ACC is pervasive, and there is no remedy for those who refuse treatment.

ACC?????

 

[GreyFox]

Are you Migini's psychic lady friend? I can't think of any other reason that you would know exactly how Amanda was feeling during this time.

Being a non-Italian speaker she probably felt hugely unsure of what to do as she would have had difficulty in expressing herself. Relying on the reports of people translating her Italian to try and prove her true feelings and meaning, is illogical and makes no sense to anyone with any cultural sensitivity

That's where Rita fits in. She can get Amanda's true feelings out in the open .... howbeit on the back of her hand.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

ACC?????

Advanced Cranial Calcification, commonly known as Bonehead's Disease.

 

[acbytesla]

Advanced Cranial Calcification, commonly known as Bonehead's Disease.

Figured it was something like that. I was guessing Anal Cranial Constipation. Having Head in ......

 

[Samson]

Perhaps not from the car park.

vel.hor = const v {velocity of rock hitting window at apex of throw}
dist.hor = integral 0 to t ( vel.hor ) = v t

vel.vert = integral 0 to t ( g ) = g t {vertical velocity at release}
dist.vert = integral 0 to t ( vel.vert) = 1/2 g t^2


dist.hor^2/dist.vert = v^2 t^2 / (1/2 g t^2) = 2 v^2/g

v = 1/2 sqrt (g dist.hor^2 / dist.vert )
​

This imposes a problem with tossing the rock from the car park in that it is impossible for the rock to strike the window at it’s apex. it is of course not absolutely necessary for the rock to be at the apex when it strikes the window but the horizontal velocity must be enough to carry it past the inner sill and if the rock is already on a downward trajectory at that point, this becomes more difficult.

It can also been seen that standing directly below the window doesn’t allow for there to be any horizontal velocity to the rock.

Standing on the ground 3 meters below the window and 2 meters away making a jump shot like a free throw with a release point at 2 meters above ground gives an impact velocity of:

v = 1/2 sqrt (g dist.hor^2 / dist.vert )
= 1/2 sqrt ( 10 * 2 / (3 - 2) ) = ~2.25 m/s
​

From a point 1/2 m further back and 1/2 m up the slope to the car park area we get:

v = 1/2 sqrt ( 10 * 2.5 / (2.5 - 2) ) = ~3.5 m/s
​

So without horizontal velocity how did the glass shard attain velocity, which must be exactly the same as the rock, to impale like a bullet? This is a critical piece of evidence for the defence IMO.

 

[Grinder]

Now I agree with all of this, but I also agree with Charlie. There is little reason to believe that there actually was multiple attackers. In fact the evidence really leads one to believe that there was only a single killer.

As for the bath mat, I've always found it interesting after looking at this print for a long time that I have seen two only two possible footprints to compare with it and I can't conclusively match either to the bathmat. So if we look at another ten other men's footprints are half or more of those also going to appear as possible matches?

My point was and is that the defense should not try to prove there was only a single killer but rather that there too little of what the prosecution is calling evidence to convict.

I'm inclined to think no defense argument will prevail in Nencini's court,

I agree, unfortunately. I still think that in court and out of court they should make the case that evidence doesn't match you don't have a catch. (Best I could think off for the rhyme)

They need to say that if there were more than one killer then that person or persons has never been identified.

Surely if they believe that if Amanda and Raf could have killed and left nothing behind then some other accomplice of Rudy could have as well.

 

[Grinder]

So without horizontal velocity how did the glass shard attain velocity, which must be exactly the same as the rock, to impale like a bullet? This is a critical piece of evidence for the defence IMO.

While the erstwhile poster Dr. Tesla maintained it would take a hundred MPH and was wrong it would take some velocity and certainly enough to break the window and dent the inner shutter.

Go throw a 9 pound brick or rock 10-15 feet into a board and you'll see. If the rock was starting to fall it still would have plenty enough speed to do the damage.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

My point was and is that the defense should not try to prove there was only a single killer but rather that there too little of what the prosecution is calling evidence to convict.



I agree, unfortunately. I still think that in court and out of court they should make the case that evidence doesn't match you don't have a catch. (Best I could think off for the rhyme)

They need to say that if there were more than one killer then that person or persons has never been identified.

Surely if they believe that if Amanda and Raf could have killed and left nothing behind then some other accomplice of Rudy could have as well.

I'm not willing to get behind that approach because it leads away from the truth. It's like arguing that just because 9-11 may have been a false flag attack, there's no proof the CIA was involved.

 

[Grinder]

it's not really our buisness to know how she could be sure; the only relevant thing is that she declared she felt sure, she appered to be sure, and she later always maintained she's sure that's how Meredith used to behave.​

Hmmmm OUR ? Can you elaborate who our is referring too in this post Mach ?

I think this is at the heart of what is going on. If Italians really think that it only is important that she appeared to be sure and kept maintaining that means we must believe it and it would be an insult to challenge how it would be possible.

Curatolo needed to be believed because he spoke in a calm way and was sure. The fact that it was the wrong night and his times needed to be altered to fit doesn't matter.

Nara said she heard something and it would be an insult to recreate the scene and see if she could hear.

Testing the climb would insult the PLE.

Challenging the protocol used by the ICSI once again is an insult. If Stefanoni says there wasn't any contamination then there wasn't any.

Asking how Filomena could possibly know if Meredith locked her door or not is an insult to her. She said she knew it wasn't ever locked, end of story.

I truly believe that there is a massive cultural disconnect. Italians do not tolerate lying and make it a crime in circumstances we would never do so. Given that perhaps they believe people in a different way than we do because lying just isn't tolerated.

No Sarks there.

 

[Grinder]

I'm not willing to get behind that approach because it leads away from the truth. It's like arguing that just because 9-11 may have been a false flag attack, there's no proof the CIA was involved.

The biggest truth is that the kids aren't killers. Whereas 911 being a false flag attack has very wide ramifications, whether there were multiple killers or only one doesn't.

The FOA and PIP have spent valuable energy trying to prove aspects of the case that didn't need to be proven to show the kids are innocent. Mentioning that other experts disagree with the multiple killer concept was fine, but in the end it doesn't matter.

The defense is not obligated nor is it their job to seek the truth certainly not to prove it. They need to show that the kids were not shown to have been part of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Period.