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

[Diocletus]

I could say the same about you.
You think LJ proved 'something' with 'his' photos!

You know, there is no articulation in you thought someone could argue with. Your lack of argumentation just speaks by itself.

Reall, I do consider that the real balcony is the logical point of entry as something self-evident. That it is not exposed, far from view, not illuminated, not suspicious, the best way in.
That was self evident to the Massei court.

But from people who don't have theintellectual honesty even to acknowledge that Knox's lack of urgency before Meredith's locked door is a point of inconsistency in her account, I do not really expect anything in terms of acknowledging reality.
You will always find a photos from which you can 'see' the balcony and you will claim that this is 'proof' of something. But this 'argument' is idiotic and will remain such.

It would be good if you came up with some evidence instead of claiming things to be "self evident" and describing arguments as "idiotic." I was always taught that such tautological arguments are the product of a lazy mind.

 

[toto]

They had evidence that the break-in was staged, as I said, not a 'perception'.

Nobody ever seriously considered that the break could be an authentic one, it just doesn't look so, and [highlight]nobody ever will.[/highlight]

Not quite true.

In the end, there is no evidence to conclude that [the break-in] was a staging rather than a real means of entry into the interior of the house (Hellman report)

 

[acbytesla]

I could say the same about you.
You think LJ proved 'something' with 'his' photos!

You know, there is no articulation in you thought someone could argue with. Your lack of argumentation just speaks by itself.

Reall, I do consider that the real balcony is the logical point of entry as something self-evident. That it is not exposed, far from view, not illuminated, not suspicious, the best way in.
That was self evident to the Massei court.

But from people who don't have theintellectual honesty even to acknowledge that Knox's lack of urgency before Meredith's locked door is a point of inconsistency in her account, I do not really expect anything in terms of acknowledging reality.
You will always find a photos from which you can 'see' the balcony and you will claim that this is 'proof' of something. But this 'argument' is idiotic and will remain such.

Oh give me a break. I've watched you time and time again lie about the facts. Amanda/Raffaele called the police TWICE. But instead, you make up this nonsense crap about urgency. Why don't you actually talk about evidence. This crap isn't evidence. Use your brain.

 

[Diocletus]

You will always find a photos from which you can 'see' the balcony and you will claim that this is 'proof' of something.

Errr . . . wouldn't this actually be proof that you can see the balcony from where the pictures were taken???

 

[Grinder]

All pictures showing that I am right.

Btw, what do you think a "regular focal lenght" is?
(my clue: the human eye has a main scope equivalent to a 35mm normally, up to 50mm equivalent when focuses attantion on a detail).
Do you think the first picture was taken with 50mm equivalent lenses?
And do you think a person on that balcony wpould be visible at night, from cars passing by? Compered with the front Filomena's window?

I'd say you have no clue what you are talking about but you already know it.

All pictures you bring just prove the obvious, the selfe evident: that the rear balcony is the logical point of entry. Not even the defence seriously attempted to dispute such an obvious point: recall the Massei court walked on the place and assessed it with their own eyes.

I agree with you on this to the extent that the balcony looks like a better access point. Neither the window to Filomena's room nor the balcony are particularly visible at night.

This once again is a trap for the defense. If Rudy picked a window that wasn't the ideal entry, so what? It doesn't prove anything.

Now if the kids wanted to stage why would they logically pick a window that was visible from the street and so high off the ground that it didn't have bars like other window at the cottage. Why wouldn't they have just left the balcony door unlocked as if someone had gone out on it and forgot to lock it when they returned?

It makes no sense that the kids worried about entry but didn't coordinate an alibi with each other. They actually said to themselves that they needed a point of entry or they would be suspected but didn't consider that they would be asked what they were doing during the murder times.

Rudy made a mistake at C.T.'s house by breaking in when it was occupied and by an employee of a bar he frequented. Rudy confessed on a Skype call. He was caught with stolen items that he took into his next hit, not too smart.

The rock was clearly thrown from the outside most assuredly from the park area - would that make sense for staging?

 

[acbytesla]

They had evidence that the break-in was staged, as I said, not a 'perception'.

Nobody ever seriously considered that the break could be an authentic one, it just doesn't look so, and nobody ever will.

They HAD NO EVIDENCE proving that the break in was staged. NONE.

They had the LYING...I mean Flying police force saying silly moronic things like we didn't see any glass on the ground. I watched those morons standing around the cottage like they were doing something and I didn't see anyone crawling on the ground below the window looking for tiny pieces of glass in the grass. You talked about soil not being found on the Filomena's floor, but you know that they there is no way to tell if the soil that was found in that room came from the parking lot or from the ground below the window.

Come with some evidence instead of claims.

 

[Grinder]

The balcony and railing would make it too difficult to throw a large rock through the window from outside.

Filomena's window, on the other hand, was just right for throwing a rock through, and then climbing up.

Why is it required that a rock be thrown? Could a burglar just jimmy the door or break the glass with a hammer?

We will soon hear that double-pane glass in Italy can't be broken.

ETA - none of the three LJ pics seem to be from the road. Bill's shot with the streetlamp seems to be from some point higher up and further back.

Here's a vid from SA - I just don't think the balcony is that visible.

 

[LondonJohn]

It would be good if you came up with some evidence instead of claiming things to be "self evident" and describing arguments as "idiotic." I was always taught that such tautological arguments are the product of a lazy mind.

Hehehehehe.......

Machiavelli (my bolding and parentheses): "But it (the balcony) is not easilly seen at all! You seem to have no clue what you are talking about. You are maybe relying on photos taken from 80 meters or more from a building, maybe with 200mm photo lenses. Nobody could notice a person on the balcony at night"

Me (to paraphrase): "Here are some photos of the balcony. All of them are taken from the road. None of them are taken with telephoto lenses. All of them quite clearly show the balcony. All of them are taken with the trees in full foliage."

Machiavelli: "All pictures showing that I am right."


I know it doesn't need saying, but I'll say it anyway, just for the symmetry of it: Machiavelli hasn't got a clue what he is talking about

 

[acbytesla]

I agree with you on this to the extent that the balcony looks like a better access point. Neither the window to Filomena's room nor the balcony are particularly visible at night.

This once again is a trap for the defense. If Rudy picked a window that wasn't the idea entry, so what? It doesn't prove anything.

Now if the kids wanted to stage why would they logically pick a window that was visible from the street and so high off the ground that it didn't have bars like other window at the cottage. Why wouldn't they have just left the balcony door unlocked as if someone had gone out on it and forgot to lock it when they returned?

It makes no sense that the kids worried about entry but didn't coordinate an alibi with each other. They actually said to themselves that they needed a point of entry or they would be suspected but didn't consider that they would be asked what they were doing during the murder times.

Rudy made a mistake at C.T.'s house by breaking in when it was occupied and by an employee of a bar he frequented. Rudy confessed on a Skype call. He was caught with stolen items that he took into his next hit, not too smart.

The rock was clearly thrown from the outside most assuredly from the park area - would that make sense for staging?

Did you see the channel 5 documentary? Climbing through that window was easy and it was the first thing Rudy came to. Why would he need to look for another point of entry? This is like choosing between apples and oranges. Do you think it would be better to break the big plate glass door or Filomena's window? Seriously, contemplating which window was better to break into in the dark when both could be broken into in less than 30 seconds is absurd.

 

[LondonJohn]

Errr . . . wouldn't this actually be proof that you can see the balcony from where the pictures were taken???

Yes. But the irony is clearly lost on dear Machiavelli.

 

[LondonJohn]

Did you see the channel 5 documentary? Climbing through that window was easy and it was the first thing Rudy came to. Why would he need to look for another point of entry? This is like choosing between apples and oranges. Do you think it would be better to break the big plate glass door or Filomena's window? Seriously, contemplating which window was better to break into in the dark when both could be broken into in less than 30 seconds is absurd.

The important point is this: any analysis of which window a real break-in perpetrator "should" have chosen is moot and irrelevant. The ONLY important thing is whether or not it was feasible and physically possible for someone to have broken in through Filomena's window in a way which is compatible with the known evidence. And the answer to that is a resounding "yes".

Why wouldn't/couldn't a break-in perp have, for example, chosen to throw a grappling iron up at the back of the cottage and enter via Meredith's window? Why wouldn't/couldn't a break-in perp have chosen to saw laboriously through the bars on one of the downstairs windows and break into the lower apartment? Why wouldn't/couldn't a break-in perp have kicked in the front door of the girls' cottage and broken in that way?

It's intellectually bankrupt to attempt to argue that the break-in "must" have been staged on the basis that "it's not the most obvious point of ingress for a break-in perp". Of course, in this instance it's also additional evidence of a nasty confirmation bias.

And of course the other point (which is just as illogical but just as valid to an idiot trying to make the "wrong point of entry" argument) is this: why would Knox and Sollecito - if guilty and performing a staging of a break-in - not have chosen the most "obvious" point of ingress for their staging?

We can argue til the cows come home over whether Filomena's window or the balcony might have been a "better" way in for a break-in perp*. But that argument is totally irrelevant. The fact is this: it was possible for a person to break in via Filomena's window, and all the evidence is compatible with a real break-in via this route.


* And in fact I'd argue that there are significant advantages to a perp of using Filomena's window vs the balcony. They main advantage is the relative ease of escape, plus the ability to close the exterior shutters in front of the broken window once inside the property (thus hiding the evidence of a break-in from passers-by).

 

[Diocletus]

Why is it required that a rock be thrown? Could a burglar just jimmy the door or break the glass with a hammer?

Rocks are good: http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/201...-burglar-breaks-into-lic-buildings-police-say

 

[moodstream]

All pictures showing that I am right.

Btw, what do you think a "regular focal lenght" is?
(my clue: the human eye has a main scope equivalent to a 35mm normally, up to 50mm equivalent when focuses attantion on a detail).
Do you think the first picture was taken with 50mm equivalent lenses?
And do you think a person on that balcony wpould be visible at night, from cars passing by? Compered with the front Filomena's window?

I'd say you have no clue what you are talking about but you already know it.

All pictures you bring just prove the obvious, the selfe evident: that the rear balcony is the logical point of entry. Not even the defence seriously attempted to dispute such an obvious point: recall the Massei court walked on the place and assessed it with their own eyes.

Yes, yes, yes.... It's a little known fact but Guede was the the runner up for the part of Spock in the last Stark Trek movie.

 

[Grinder]

They HAD NO EVIDENCE proving that the break in was staged. NONE.

They had the LYING...I mean Flying police force saying silly moronic things like we didn't see any glass on the ground. I watched those morons standing around the cottage like they were doing something and I didn't see anyone crawling on the ground below the window looking for tiny pieces of glass in the grass. You talked about soil not being found on the Filomena's floor, but you know that they there is no way to tell if the soil that was found in that room came from the parking lot or from the ground below the window.

Come with some evidence instead of claims.

Tesla you were there when the police were looking over the crime scene? I'll have to reconsider your insights based on that.

Was there video of them doing the search at all times?

Glass would be outside either way btw.

 

[moodstream]

They had evidence that the break-in was staged, as I said, not a 'perception'.

Nobody ever seriously considered that the break could be an authentic one, it just doesn't look so, and nobody ever will.

If the balcony were the most logical entry point, still that would not make it evidence that the burglary was staged. It would make it a hypothesis... an untestable hypothesis .. with therefore zero evidentiary value.

 

[Bill Williams]

I could say the same about you.
You think LJ proved 'something' with 'his' photos!
You know, there is no articulation in you thought someone could argue with. Your lack of argumentation just speaks by itself.

Reall, I do consider that the real balcony is the logical point of entry as something self-evident. That it is not exposed, far from view, not illuminated, not suspicious, the best way in.That was self evident to the Massei court.

But from people who don't have theintellectual honesty even to acknowledge that Knox's lack of urgency before Meredith's locked door is a point of inconsistency in her account, I do not really expect anything in terms of acknowledging reality.
You will always find a photos from which you can 'see' the balcony and you will claim that this is 'proof' of something. But this 'argument' is idiotic and will remain such.

The one thing that is missing from Machavelli's assertions is proof.

The thing that is present with LJ's assertions IS proof. Did you not see the picture I posted where the balcony is clearly visible from the road, AND has a street lamp facing it?

It is amazing to me the number of times one needs to argue against the evidence to maintain something.

The fact is, the balcony is the least likely point of entry for all the reasons listed. Even Judge Massei conceded that entry through Filomena's window was eminently doable... Massei just ruled out that Rudy would have climbed three times, with no particular reason, really, why climbing 100 times was out of the question....

This whole issue is a mini-version of how evidence is handled by each side. So it is some neutral observer can make up their own mind, really.

Take a look at the photos. The reason why Machiavelli wants folks to doubt the photos is because they are so clear.

By the time I've typed this... Rudy would have been up and in Filomena's window, and sitting on the toilet with music in his ears... waiting for the horrible event to come.

This is such a non-issue. One has to argue against the evidence to claim otherwise.

 

[Grinder]

Did you see the channel 5 documentary? Climbing through that window was easy and it was the first thing Rudy came to. Why would he need to look for another point of entry? This is like choosing between apples and oranges. Do you think it would be better to break the big plate glass door or Filomena's window? Seriously, contemplating which window was better to break into in the dark when both could be broken into in less than 30 seconds is absurd.

The balcony would have not been highly visible. Watch the video.

As I said earlier this is a trap. It doesn't matter whether Rudy picked the best entry point or not. It's okay to say that the balcony would be a better break-in point. It doesn't mean that it was staged.

The rock climbing enthusiast after practicing was able to easily get up to the window with the shutters open. I think it is quite reasonable to look at that window and say it isn't the easiest entry point. So what?

 

[Grinder]

If the balcony were the most logical entry point, still that would not make it evidence that the burglary was staged. It would make it a hypothesis... an untestable hypothesis .. with therefore zero evidentiary value.

Bingo. The PIP keep fighting these battles that don't matter. There is no evidence that Amanda and Raf staged. What a strange coincidence that they used his MO to stage.

 

[acbytesla]

Tesla you were there when the police were looking over the crime scene? I'll have to reconsider your insights based on that.

Was there video of them doing the search at all times?

Glass would be outside either way btw.

No, but you know they weren't. It was like a road crew where 1 guy is doing all the work and the rest are leaning on shovels.

I've heard them say almost casually that they didn't see any glass below the window, but did you hear about a comprehensive search for glass??

I certainly didn't.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bingo. The PIP keep fighting these battles that don't matter. There is no evidence that Amanda and Raf staged. What a strange coincidence that they used his MO to stage.

This part I grudgingly agree with you. But for me the issue really isn't which break-in point was easier, per se. The issue is as both Channel 5 proved and as even Massei heavily suggested, you can rule out Filomena's window as a reasonable and readily doable break-in point, regardless of even if the front door was wide open!

You're right, it is a bit of a waste to even argue it. Esp. when photographic evidence clearly shows the relative exposure of the balcony... but then again, here I am arguing it, and it doesn't really need it.