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

[Grinder]

Facts\factoids whatever; Italian court procedure doesn’t seem to allow those kinds of definitive moments we have seen on TV over the years.

Perry Mason never used a factoid in those dramatic moments.

fac·toid (fktoid)
n.
1. A piece of unverified or inaccurate information that is presented in the press as factual, often as part of a publicity effort, and that is then accepted as true because of frequent repetition: "What one misses finally is what might have emerged beyond both facts and factoids a profound definition of the Marilyn Monroe phenomenon" (Christopher Lehmann-Haupt).
2. Usage Problem A brief, somewhat interesting fact.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

It's a false equivalency, though. We can objectively see the guy climb up the wall. The self-defense guy can't really surprise, threaten, rape and kill the actress. It's not a snuff film.

Nonetheless that was the shows conclusion; I think it was the first “test”.

I would have been impressed if they had given 20 Euro’s to the nearest twentysomething year old playing basketball rather than a rock climbing enthusiast, same goes for the self-defence test.


Still at least we know that the show demonstrated the following week that JFK was shot by one of his own secret service agents.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Perry Mason never used a factoid in those dramatic moments.

fac·toid (fktoid)
n.
1. A piece of unverified or inaccurate information that is presented in the press as factual, often as part of a publicity effort, and that is then accepted as true because of frequent repetition: "What one misses finally is what might have emerged beyond both facts and factoids a profound definition of the Marilyn Monroe phenomenon" (Christopher Lehmann-Haupt).
2. Usage Problem A brief, somewhat interesting fact.

Thanks for the clarification on factoids.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Attending karate classes and getting a couple of belts when she was kid would have meant absolutely nothing several years later, one has to continually train, physical conditioning and have regular kumite’s (fighting), one can only be regarded as an expert at Sandan level (3rd Dan), this is level one can be called a Sensei (instructor) and that takes many years of training.

That being said maybe I am George Bush like misremembering, but my recollection was it would have been very difficult but not impossible to restrain and use a knife, but the lack of defences wounds suggested that Meredith was being restrained.
I do accept that a rock climbing enthusiast did easily climbing up to Filomena’s window, I also accept the conclusions of the channel 5 shows self-defence expert.

Going back as far as the SeattlePI blog days I have been disappointed that none of the defence teams have used any of the arguments or factoids posted on the net, I keep thinking there will be a Perry Mason or a Quency moment in court. Still I have no idea what the verdict will be.

-

the bruisings and wounds to the back of the scalp, under the chin (like someone was forcibly holding her neck up), and the stab wound patterns to the neck and cheek, all indicate a kill from behind by a right handed attacker.

While wounds and bruising to the front of the nose, lips, gums, shoulder rotator cuff, hips, upper forearm, and elbows all are indicators to me that suggest someone slammed Meredith against the wall or floor and anyone who argues that this (esp. damage to the nose, lips and gum area) never causes temporary uncosciousness or causes a person to at least be dazed enough so a single attacker doesn't need another person there to restraint and then kill someone, then that person is a stupid dumb^ss - I'm not referring to you CoulsdonUK.

But as always, this chain of events based on wounds and bruising is just my opinion,

d

-

 

[codyjuneau]

.
I think there is a lot of confusion about the climber's demonstration. I think it is important to clear this up, maybe even explain it to the judge and jurors.

Grinder is right that the guy does not get himself all the way up to the ledge without using the bars.

Bill and others are right that if you are not allowed to use the bars, then they restrict movement and hinder the climber's ability to climb up to and over the ledge. In fact, it is the reason the climber could not and did not do it.

But the climber was not trying to demonstrate he could climb up on to the ledge while the bars are in place. He was explaining and demonstrating how Rudy could have easily entered if the bars were not there.

Listen to what he says leading up to this:

01:19 'It is not a problem to open' (the shutters)

01:38 'And if you want you can break the glass and clean the pieces of the glass that remain in the window'

01:45 'And then you can pull yourself up and go in the windows without bars'

The above is when the climber pulls himself up to demonstrate how it would be done if the bars were not there. He is expecting the viewer to understand that if the bars are not there, and the window is open, it would be easy to complete the entry. He is expecting the viewer to visualize the rest!

01:51 'it is not difficult and enter in the house'

There is one other thing to mention. It would be even easier to just unlatch and open the window, rather than cleaning the glass from the inside of the frame. It demonstrates that the climber is not an experienced burglar.
.

 

[Bill Williams]

.
I think there is a lot of confusion about the climber's demonstration. I think it is important to clear this up, maybe even explain it to the judge and jurors.

Grinder is right that the guy does not get himself all the way up to the ledge without using the bars.

Bill and others are right that if you are not allowed to use the bars, then they restrict movement and hinder the climber's ability to climb up to and over the ledge. In fact, it is the reason the climber could not and did not do it.

But the climber was not trying to demonstrate he could climb up on to the ledge while the bars are in place. He was explaining and demonstrating how Rudy could have easily entered if the bars were not there.

Listen to what he says leading up to this:

01:19 'It is not a problem to open' (the shutters)

01:38 'And if you want you can break the glass and clean the pieces of the glass that remain in the window'

01:45 'And then you can pull yourself up and go in the windows without bars'

The above is when the climber pulls himself up to demonstrate how it would be done if the bars were not there. He is expecting the viewer to understand that if the bars are not there, and the window is open, it would be easy to complete the entry. He is expecting the viewer to visualize the rest!

01:51 'it is not difficult and enter in the house'

There is one other thing to mention. It would be even easier to just unlatch and open the window, rather than cleaning the glass from the inside of the frame. It demonstrates that the climber is not an experienced burglar.
.

Thanks.

 

[Grinder]

Nonetheless that was the shows conclusion; I think it was the first “test”.

I would have been impressed if they had given 20 Euro’s to the nearest twentysomething year old playing basketball rather than a rock climbing enthusiast, same goes for the self-defence test.


Still at least we know that the show demonstrated the following week that JFK was shot by one of his own secret service agents.

For our purposes it would have been great to have 3 guys like Rudy in size and build have at it. A few tries before filming would have been fine. The first move the rock climber makes from the crouched position doesn't seem an untrained one, but now we will hear from all the Olympic athletes here that naturally used the move as mere tikes to scale tall buildings etc.

Btw, everyone already knew the SS had killed him

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Perry Mason never used a factoid in those dramatic moments.

fac·toid (fktoid)
n.
1. A piece of unverified or inaccurate information that is presented in the press as factual, often as part of a publicity effort, and that is then accepted as true because of frequent repetition: "What one misses finally is what might have emerged beyond both facts and factoids a profound definition of the Marilyn Monroe phenomenon" (Christopher Lehmann-Haupt).
2. Usage Problem A brief, somewhat interesting fact.

-

In the TV show, Perry Mason tended to use factoids to get the witness to confess.

The TV shows were not as good as the books. I have read every one of them at least a dozen or more times.

One thing that the author (Erle Stanley Gardner, who was an actual lawyer) did do was champion the use of forensics in criminal cases (especially when death is the subject), considering that his writing career with Perry Mason dates back to the 1930s, he was a man ahead of his time.

It's where I first learned about stomach contents, body temp, post mortem lividity and rigor mortis being used to calculate the time of death. Even though Gardner was writing fiction his legal and forensic factoids were quite accurate for the time.

d

-

 

[MDDVS]

But since this is an exponential curve you do know that about every hour you wait the error can double.

Yes, my only point was that you'll only know these things after you actually perform the measurement, not before. You shouldn't argue that a large estimate error is a reason to not perform the measurement because you don't know if the error is large before performing the measurement.

 

[Diocletus]

Nonetheless that was the shows conclusion; I think it was the first “test”.

Common sense tells us that a guy with a knife obviously can subdue, rape and kill a young woman. Unfortunately, it's not a very surprising event. A better "test" would have been for them to ask some of the probably thousands of survivors of such attacks if they thought that someone like Rudy might have done this crime.

To put up some martial arts guy to say he couldn't do it is just ridiculous, and frankly, offensive to the victims of such attacks. Like Madonna.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

-


-

the bruisings and wounds to the back of the scalp, under the chin (like someone was forcibly holding her neck up), and the stab wound patterns to the neck and cheek, all indicate a kill from behind by a right handed attacker.

While wounds and bruising to the front of the nose, lips, gums, shoulder rotator cuff, hips, upper forearm, and elbows all are indicators to me that suggest someone slammed Meredith against the wall or floor and anyone who argues that this (esp. damage to the nose, lips and gum area) never causes temporary uncosciousness or causes a person to at least be dazed enough so a single attacker doesn't need another person there to restraint and then kill someone, then that person is a stupid dumb^ss - I'm not referring to you CoulsdonUK.

But as always, this chain of events based on wounds and bruising is just my opinion,

d

-

I am merely repeating the shows conclusions and it stated that Meredith didn’t have defences wounds, what do they know (a rhetorical question)?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Common sense tells us that a guy with a knife obviously can subdue, rape and kill a young woman. Unfortunately, it's not a very surprising event. A better "test" would have been for them to ask some of the probably thousands of survivors of such attacks if they thought that someone like Rudy might have done this crime.

To put up some martial arts guy to say he couldn't do it is just ridiculous, and frankly, offensive to the victims of such attacks. Like Madonna.

That wasn’t the conclusion of the channel 5 TV programme as I have said, I am merely repeating not defending the shows test and conclusions.

 

[MDDVS]

A sad consequence of being a London resident is having been the attempted victim of a knifepoint mugging. Much to my embarrassment the mugger was about 12 and smaller than me (if possible); actually there were two. Having failed to lure me off the main street by offering me cannabis he then pulled a small knife on me. Sadly I could not do a Crocodile Dundee as unlike AK (allegedly) I do not keep a kitchen knife in my hand bag. Smaller he may have been but I wasn't going to argue with a knife. If anyone is interested in the outcome I ******* ran for it. Weapons trump size.

Tell me about it. You don't have to be in London though. I was also a victim of a knifepoint mugging once. Didn't manage to run though, as they were a bunch of guys on motorcycles and they started kicking me as I tried to run away. Then one of them held a knife to my throat and I can tell you that at that point fighting was the last thing on my mind. And I did some trianing in Judo when I was younger. Yes, they were more than one, but I know the sensation of having a knife put to your throat.

 

[Diocletus]

That wasn’t the conclusion of the channel 5 TV programme as I have said, I am merely repeating not defending the shows test and conclusions.

Well, since you brought it up it would be more interesting if you defended it. We already know the "conclusion" on this issue.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

For our purposes it would have been great to have 3 guys like Rudy in size and build have at it. A few tries before filming would have been fine. The first move the rock climber makes from the crouched position doesn't seem an untrained one, but now we will hear from all the Olympic athletes here that naturally used the move as mere tikes to scale tall buildings etc.

<snip>

I agree.

 

[MDDVS]

Yes, that test was ridiculous. It's just a test for a start and the "victim" knows it. It's not the same as a guy putting a knife to your throat. I know that behind our keyboards we're all heroes and would do this and that to the attacker. The reality is a bit different though. Maybe once you realise the guy intends to kill you you may try to put a fight but can easily be to little to late.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Well, since you brought it up it would be more interesting if you defended it. We already know the "conclusion" on this issue.

It was a tabloid TV show, nuff said.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

For our purposes it would have been great to have 3 guys like Rudy in size and build have at it. A few tries before filming would have been fine. The first move the rock climber makes from the crouched position doesn't seem an untrained one, but now we will hear from all the Olympic athletes here that naturally used the move as mere tikes to scale tall buildings etc.

I think from the defence perspective all that needs to be shown is that the climb is not impossibly difficult. They don't need to show that Rudy could not possibly have botched the climb, or show exactly how he placed each hand and foot, they just need to show that there's nothing terribly improbable about postulating that he did it.

 

[acbytesla]

What does the above mean? That Battistelli got out of the car near the house but didn't enter the property? He walked around? Did he know he was near the house or was he confused by the change of street names and not know where the house was? Did he forget the address and have to wait for his partner to come around again to remind him? If he knew for sure where the house was why did he walk around instead of going to the front door? A and R were waiting for the police (Carbineri) by the front door. When did Battistelli actually get to the front door - not the neighborhood, not the car park, but the actual front door of the cottage? When did he see the occupants and approach them? It was almost 1 pm. Did he and his partner miss lunch? It took his partner 15 minutes to go around the block? Did he stop to pick up some food or a drink? Sounds like keystone cops to me.

He was looking for a donut shop.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

I am merely repeating the shows conclusions and it stated that Meredith didn’t have defences wounds, what do they know (a rhetorical question)?

-

I know C. I even made the point (in the quote you used) that I wasn't referring to you.

Peace out buddy,

d

-