Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[analemma]

But that's not what he did.

If the shutters were closed it is not clear there would be enough sill to grip. I don't happen to believe that the shutters were closed.

When he demonstrated how easy it would be to open the shutters he lowers himself from the ledge to put his feet on the top bar. It would have been better had he climbed the lower window bars with the shutter in place and then demoed the opening and closing.

His work clearly shows that the window was not a feat for Spiderman.

The only climbing history for Rudi is his alleged "climb" to the balcony of the lawyers' office that was burglarized. It was different because there was a balcony similar to the one on the other side of the cottage.

But that's not what he did.
True enough, but really Grinder, that is all he had to do.
Why would there be a problem standing upon the bars, as opposed to the sill?


If the shutters were closed it is not clear there would be enough sill to grip. I don't happen to believe that the shutters were closed.
if you look closely at 1:26 ands 1:29-1:31 you will see that he has his fingers on the sill.
I am not sure that it matters, since there appears to be a 4 inch section beyond the right shutter.
I agree with you that this demo could have been much better, since the cut outs to view the spectators interrupt the flow of the whole demo.
I think that he should not have used the upper window bars in any way, since they were not there at the time of the murder.

 

[Grinder]

But that's not what he did.
True enough, but really Grinder, that is all he had to do.
Why would there be a problem standing upon the bars, as opposed to the sill?

In my opinion as one climbed up the bars without a hold, one would only have foot pressure to keep from falling backwards. If it was easy to climb up the bars I wished they would have shown it as the climbing move he used looked practiced to me. I repeat that the video clearly shows that the climb was definitely not a feat for Spiderman.

 

[Grinder]

Gievn that it is now just you and me, we are going to have to get along.

You're welcome.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_53971564a6b2a87266.jpg[/qimg]

thanks. do you crop on this site?

 

[christianahannah]

The picture in the article shows that a car on the cottage side of the road would force passengers to look back and down to see the window of Filomena.

I don't know how to crop it so here's the link

Nice catch.... and over their shoulder. And Filomena's side of the house would not be illuminated by headlights.

Gievn that it is now just you and me, we are going to have to get along.

You're welcome.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_53971564a6b2a87266.jpg[/qimg]

Do the cars only drive in one direction on this road?

 

[Sergei Walankov]

No, it's a two-way street. Looking at it on Google Street View, there's no entry point to the cottage that isn't visible from that street in one direction or the other.

 

[Grinder]

Do the cars only drive in one direction on this road?

No, but because the the cottage is below street level the cars going the other way are at least partially blocked from seeing by the street itself. It appears that even the driver of the red car could only see the top part of the cottage.

 

[analemma]

This" joyful day"? Do share your insights into which bits of the Bruno-Marasca report are "joyful", as the rest of us have missed it.
It is so joyful to read your pearls of wisdom.

The " joyful day" was 3/27/2015, when the witch hunt of the innocents was ended when the Italian Supreme Court acquitted them of all charges related to the murder.
The rest of us, except for you and the few other witch hunters that remain, were overjoyed with all the parts of the Bruno-Marasca report, except the slander nonsense, which will come back to bite Italy in the butt in good time.
I hope you are "joyful" when you read this.

 

[analemma]

No, but because the the cottage is below street level the cars going the other way are at least partially blocked from seeing by the street itself. It appears that even the driver of the red car could only see the top part of the cottage.

That is even more likely if you consider where the car coming the other way will be located on the roadway. Since cars in Italy drive on the right(as in other European countries and the states), the driver would be back away from the wall in the right lane and be unable to see over the wall and down to the window.
I would like to see some sort of picture that would show what was really visible to a driver on the right side on that road approaching the cottage: Does anyone have one??????
Another point is that the road appears to be winding back and forth at that point and it may be unsafe for drivers to be looking around at the scenery on that turn: although anything that conforms with guilt is normal to the guilters.

 

[Grinder]

That is even more likely if you consider where the car coming the other way will be located on the roadway. Since cars in Italy drive on the right(as in other European countries and the states), the driver would be back away from the wall in the right lane and be unable to see over the wall and down to the window.
I would like to see some sort of picture that would show what was really visible to a driver on the right side on that road approaching the cottage: Does anyone have one??????
Another point is that the road appears to be winding back and forth at that point and it may be unsafe for drivers to be looking around at the scenery on that turn: although anything that conforms with guilt is normal to the guilters.

There was a video made by a PGP but it was done walking and he was on the edge of the road IIRC. I agree that it would have been good PR to have done a video drive by. Say does Google have that street?

I'm confident that the cottage would go unnoticed by the vast majority of people in cars. All people in cars tend to look ahead and up rather than to the side and down.

The Google trucks that take the street view have a camera mounted high up this should take you to a view of the cottage heading the opposite direction as the red car. Even from the high mount the climb would not be visible.

This is the view of the kitchen balcony from the road and it is totally exposed.

Here is a picture of the Google car:

If the picture was taken from eye height of the driver, the window would barely be visible. The climb would be hidden completely. On the other hand the balcony from the kitchen is totally exposed including the climb.

 

[analemma]

The Google trucks that take the street view have a camera mounted high up this should take you to a view of the cottage heading the opposite direction as the red car. Even from the high mount the climb would not be visible.

Thank you sooo much for providing the links: I had trouble finding them
From the other direction, with the google high mount, the window and the climb ARE visible. You may want to check me on this.
I do not know what the view would be from a car window, but maybe someone could figure it out.
By changing the views and zooming, I was able to estimate that the view from the google lens is about 4 feet higher than the retaining wall on the right side of the road: which is pretty high and no doubt changes what is visible below the road considerably.
I do not have the expertise with math and such to estimate what the view would be from the drivers height(4 feet?) on the right side of the road.
If someone with an engineering background wants to take a crack at analyzing the factors and coming up with a view from the right side from 4 feet, I would appreciate it and it might dispel some guilter theories in the process.

AT any rate, I agree that the driver would have to look sideways and down on this road, which is unlikely because the road begins a left curve at the end of the first cottage section.

 

[Grinder]

Thank you sooo much for providing the links: I had trouble finding them
From the other direction, with the google high mount, the window and the climb ARE visible. You may want to check me on this.
I do not know what the view would be from a car window, but maybe someone could figure it out.
By changing the views and zooming, I was able to estimate that the view from the google lens is about 4 feet higher than the retaining wall on the right side of the road: which is pretty high and no doubt changes what is visible below the road considerably.
I do not have the expertise with math and such to estimate what the view would be from the drivers height(4 feet?) on the right side of the road.
If someone with an engineering background wants to take a crack at analyzing the factors and coming up with a view from the right side from 4 feet, I would appreciate it and it might dispel some guilter PGP theories in the process.

AT any rate, I agree that the driver would have to look sideways and down on this road, which is unlikely because the road begins a left curve at the end of the first cottage section.

Well I'm not at the level to be able to take these and recalculate precisely but if you check again even from the camera that is at least 4 feet above the car the bottom window is not visible. My best estimate is that the window would be barely visible for the driver if the car was towards the center line.

What is absolutely clear beyond a shadow of a doubt is that the balcony is very visible from the road.

The most a PGP could argue is that they are both visible. This dispels their assertion but I too would appreciate an engineers opinion.

If you know how to post the pictures from the Google street view, that would be cool.

 

[Bill Williams]

Well I'm not at the level to be able to take these and recalculate precisely but if you check again even from the camera that is at least 4 feet above the car the bottom window is not visible. My best estimate is that the window would be barely visible for the driver if the car was towards the center line.

What is absolutely clear beyond a shadow of a doubt is that the balcony is very visible from the road.

The most a PGP could argue is that they are both visible. This dispels their assertion but I too would appreciate an engineers opinion.

If you know how to post the pictures from the Google street view, that would be cool.

The real scandal is that the prosecution itself didn't bother to check ANY of this out. Even by Vixen's account, it was the defence lawyer - at trial - who did the demonstration. If one of the crimes they were initially convicted of was with regard to the simulation of a break-in, would not the prosecution be required to do the kind log leg work that you're asking of an engineer?

Why would the prosecution be required to prove anything - to any standard of proof - when an assertion from an authority figure will suffice?

 

[Vixen]

My source was from memory from Russell, Johnson & Garofano's Darkness Descending 2010. I like this book because it came out before the American let's-blame-Rudy PR bandwagon (Burleigh, Dempsey, etc) churning out a load of nauseating spin with the aim of perverting the course of justice.

I don't know where my copy of the book is, but if someone has it, please do let us know their source of reference.

 

[Vixen]

The real scandal is that the prosecution itself didn't bother to check ANY of this out. Even by Vixen's account, it was the defence lawyer - at trial - who did the demonstration. If one of the crimes they were initially convicted of was with regard to the simulation of a break-in, would not the prosecution be required to do the kind log leg work that you're asking of an engineer?

Why would the prosecution be required to prove anything - to any standard of proof - when an assertion from an authority figure will suffice?

Why would it be a scandal? If you are issued with a ticket for speeding, there is no requirement to prove anything at all other than a snapshot of your whizzing by the speed camera.

Ditto, if a defendant in murder trial disputes the prosecution claims, the onus is on them to produce the, ahem, defence.

For example, if it were your belief the speed camera was kaput, it'd be for you to get the expert witness in to testify this on your behalf.

 

[Vixen]

Duplicate

 

[Grinder]

Why would it be a scandal? If you are issued with a ticket for speeding, there is no requirement to prove anything at all other than a snapshot of your whizzing by the speed camera.

Ditto, if a defendant in murder trial disputes the prosecution claims, the onus is on them to produce the, ahem, defence.

For example, if it were your belief the speed camera was kaput, it'd be for you to get the expert witness in to testify this on your behalf.

If the prosecution contended that one window was visible another wasn't then it is their job to demonstrate that.

If they are using a speed camera they must produce proof that the camera had been checked for accuracy at manufacturers specified points in time. Many a DUI has been found not guilty because the Breathalyzer wasn't proven to be accurate. This is similar to DNA work in a lab. The lab must show that contamination prevention was up to scientific standards not the other way around.

Of course if the defense can prove the machines in general were defective or the specific machine was, then bully for them. In this case the clock on the camera was shown to be in error, for example.

 

[Vixen]

The " joyful day" was 3/27/2015, when the witch hunt of the innocents was ended when the Italian Supreme Court acquitted them of all charges related to the murder.
The rest of us, except for you and the few other witch hunters that remain, were overjoyed with all the parts of the Bruno-Marasca report, except the slander nonsense, which will come back to bite Italy in the butt in good time.
I hope you are "joyful" when you read this.

How wonderful! I am so happy, I am skipping through a meadow bathed in sunlight wearing a diaphonous white dress with a garland of flowers bursting forth blooms of sweet fragrance [That's enough - Ed]

Did you read the bit that says Amanda was at the murder house during the murder, washed Mez' blood from her hands and covered up for poor poor Rudy? And that Raff was very likely with her as it was improbable she would not just simply rang him when she arrived at the cottage next mornning to a burglary scene.

<fx Bump: analemma crashing to the ground in reality>

 

[bagels]

My source was from memory from Russell, Johnson & Garofano's Darkness Descending 2010. I like this book because it came out before the American let's-blame-Rudy PR bandwagon (Burleigh, Dempsey, etc) churning out a load of nauseating spin with the aim of perverting the course of justice.

I don't know where my copy of the book is, but if someone has it, please do let us know their source of reference.

Actually Nina Burleigh thought she was investigating a female Charles Manson until she got to Italy and discovered there was no case at all.

This is what happens when rational people investigate the case. When unstable people investigate the case they create an elaborate but impossible conspiracy starting with three virtual strangers committing an implausible crime up to a mass PR effort to control the media, and then all the way up to mafia connections on the Supreme Court to spring them entirely. IIRC Nina Burleigh asked one of the leading PGPs basic questions about the evidence and when he discovered she wasn't drinking the guilter koolaid he accused her of being a PR plant and made veiled threats to her children. That is typical of the PGP side because the obviousness of the total lack of a case against the students acts as a filter against reasonable people becoming attached to that side.

 

[Grinder]

My source was from memory from Russell, Johnson & Garofano's Darkness Descending 2010. I like this book because it came out before the American let's-blame-Rudy PR bandwagon (Burleigh, Dempsey, etc) churning out a load of nauseating spin with the aim of perverting the course of justice.

I don't know where my copy of the book is, but if someone has it, please do let us know their source of reference.

No one has your book. I mean really

Are you saying Rudi didn't do it?

 

[Vixen]

If the prosecution contended that one window was visible another wasn't then it is their job to demonstrate that.

If they are using a speed camera they must produce proof that the camera had been checked for accuracy at manufacturers specified points in time. Many a DUI has been found not guilty because the Breathalyzer wasn't proven to be accurate. This is similar to DNA work in a lab. The lab must show that contamination prevention was up to scientific standards not the other way around.

Of course if the defense can prove the machines in general were defective or the specific machine was, then bully for them. In this case the clock on the camera was shown to be in error, for example.

You omit to remember the "burglary" happened in the night. By November sun sets in Europe this time of the year circa 1630.

Filomena's window I presume was well-lit and the terrace door not, for police to claim a burglar would have made himself more visible to motorists shinning up the wall than sneaking in the front (as real intruders did later).