Page 526 of 536 FirstFirst ... 26426476516522523524525526527528529530 ... LastLast
Results 7,876 to 7,890 of 8026

Thread: Amanda Knox gets 26 Years

  1. #7876

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dougm View Post
    Judge Massei, in his reasoning for conviction in the first trial, stated that the broken window in Filomena's room was not only an illogical point of entry (since there are windows that would have been easier to access) but that it was basically not possible for Rudy Guede to have climbed into that window, because it is too high off the ground.



    You are lying. Again.


    This is what they do... completely makeup something (i.e. Massei reasoned that the window was too high off the ground for Guede to climb into) and then proceed to argue against it: "see, the window is NOT too high off the ground"


    The height of the window is a complete non issue. In Massei's reasoning he never claims that the window is too high to enter or that it's too difficult to climb up to.

  2. #7877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fabrizio View Post


    You are lying. Again.

    You sound like a child.

    The height of the window is a complete non issue. In Massei's reasoning he never claims that the window is too high to enter or that it's too difficult to climb up to.
    From an English interpetation of the report, pages 46 to about 50
    http://massei-report-analysis.wikispaces.com/

    in order to enable the burglar to aim at the window and smash it by throwing a large stone - the one found in Romanelli's room. The "climber" (the window in Romanelli's room is located at a height of more than three and a half metres from the ground underneath, cf. photo 11 from the relevant dossier
    Clearly, the window's hieght was a consideration for the initial finding. There are additional representations in the report regarding the difficulty of entering through the window as well.

    But than again, I am sure it is the English translation that is flawed . Again.


    Last edited by eddhead; October 1st, 2013 at 12:59 PM.

  3. #7878

    Default

    Child indeed... with 1st grade reading skills.

    Only Eddhead could read what Massei wrote and think it = Massei reasoning "that it was basically not possible for Rudy Guede to have climbed into that window, because it is too high off the ground."

  4. #7879

    Default

    Right. Only me. And of course, this:

    [36] It must be held that when Filomena Romanelli left the house in via della Pergola, she had pulled the shutters towards the interior of her room, although she did not think that she had actually closed them; furthermore, because they were old and the wood had swelled a bit, they rubbed on the windowsill; to pull them towards the room it was necessary to use some force ("they rubbed on the windowsill"); but in this way, once they had been pulled in, as Romanelli remembered doing, they remained well closed by the pressure of the swelled wood against the windowsill. Now, for a rock to have been able to break the glass of the window without shattering the outside shutters, it would have been necessary to remove the obstacle of the shutters by opening them up. The consultant for the defence actually assumed that this had been done; in his exhibit, he assumed that the shutters were not present [in front of the window]. Consequently, since the shutters had been pulled together and their rubbing put pressure on the windowsill on which they rested, it would have first been necessary to effect an operation with the specific goal of completely opening these shutters. The failure to find any instrument suitable for making such an opening (one cannot even see what type of instrument could be used to this end) leads one to assume that the wall would have to have 49
    been scaled a first time in order to effect the complete opening of the shutters ("if the shutters were closed, he could not have passed through, that is obvious", cf. declarations of the consultant for the defence, Sergeant Francesco Pasquali, p. 22 hearing July 3, 2009), in order to enable the burglar to aim at the window and smash it by throwing a large stone - the one found in Romanelli's room. The "climber" (the window in Romanelli's room is located at a height of more than three and a half metres from the ground underneath, cf. photo 11 from the relevant dossier) would also need to rely on the fact that the shutters were not actually latched, and also that the ‚scuri‛ ,which are the wooden panels [scuri=non-louvered shutters in interior of room] that usually constitute the outer side (or the inner, depending on the point of view) of the window [attached to the outer edge of the inner side of the window-frame] had not been fastened to the window-frame to which the broken pane was attached; otherwise it would not have been possible to open them from the outside; nor would it have been possible, even breaking the glass, to make a hole giving access to the house, [37] since if these inner panels had been closed, they would have continued to provide an adequate obstacle to the possibility of opening the window

    Admitting that the climber decided to bet, in a sense, on the presence of both of these "favourable" - in fact, indispensable - conditions, the climber would then have had to climb up once, from underneath the window of Romanelli's room, in order to open the shutters; then he would have had to get the large rock, and having selected the point where he wanted to break the window, to throw it (it seems impossible to accept that he actually made the climb while carrying the large rock, and threw it against the window at the risk of being hit by glass falling from the pane thus shattered).
    He would then have to have returned underneath Romanelli's window for the second climb, and through the broken glass, open the window (balanced on his knees or feet on the outside part of the windowsill) otherwise he would not have been able to pass his arm through the hole in the glass made by the stone) and reach up to the latch that fastened the window casements, necessarily latched since otherwise, if the casements had not been latched, it would not have been necessary to throw a rock at all, but just to open the shutters and climb inside.
    This scenario appears totally unlikely, given the effort involved (going twice underneath the window, going up to throw the stone, scaling the wall twice) and taking into account the uncertainty of success (having to count on the two favourable circumstances indicated above), with a repetition of movements and
    50
    behaviours, all of which could easily be seen by anyone who happened to be passing by on the street or actually coming into the house.
    It cannot be assumed - as the Defence Consultant did - that the shutters were left completely open, since this contradicts the declarations of Romanelli, which appear to be detailed and entirely likely, considering that she was actually leaving for the holiday and had some things of value in her room; already she did not feel quite safe because window-frames were in wood
    [38] without any grille. Also, the circumstance of the shutters being wide open does not correspond to their position when they were found and described by witnesses on November 2, and photographed (cf. photo 11 already mentioned)
    But beyond these considerations, there are other elements which tend to exclude the possibility that a burglar could have entered the house through the window of Romanelli's room. The double climb necessary to attain the height of three and a half metres would have left some kind of trace or imprint on the wall, especially on the points on the wall that the "climber" would have used to support his feet, all the more as both the witnesses Romanelli and Marco Zaroli gave statements indicating that the earth, on that early November evening, must have been very wet (declarations of Marco Zaroli, hearing of February 6, 2009, p. 174, and declarations of Filomena Romanelli, hearing of July 7, 2009 p. 24; see also the document acquired at the hearing of March 28, 2009 concerning the fact that on October 30, 2007, it was raining). In fact, there are no visible signs on the wall, and furthermore, it can be observed that the nail - this was noted by this Court of Assizes during the inspection - remained where it was: it seems very unlikely that the climber, given the position of that nail and its characteristics, visible in the photo 11, did not somehow "encounter" that nail and force it, inadvertently or by using it as a foothold, causing it to fall or at least bend it. On this subject it is also useful to recall that at the hearing of April 23, 2009, the witness Gioia Brocci mentioned above declared that she had observed the exterior of the house, paying particular attention to the wall underneath the window with the broken pane, the window of the room then occupied by Filomena Romanelli. She said: "We observed both the wall...underneath the window and all of the vegetation underneath the window, and we noted that there were no traces on the wall, no traces of earth, of grass, nothing, no streaks, nothing at all, and none
    [39] of the vegetation underneath the window appeared to have been trampled; nothing..


    Sorry I could not highligth the text in bold, for some reason it wouldn't happen, but te point is there are pages of conjecture sited in the opinion constituting wild rationalizations about how the break-in must have been staged because of the difficulty of entering the house through a unshutered window held closed by a swollen frame and how doing so would require two 3.5 mtr climbs and an ability to open the shutter using some type of unavaiable tool.

    This is some wild shit.

    So DougM posts a vid contradicting that entire hypothesis, and you respond by suggesting the hypothesis never existed in the first place. And that HE is the liar.

    You're diluded.

  5. #7880

    Default

    ^
    Actually, the page you posted has an excellent link to the break-in.

    http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/RonHendry------2.html

    Among other things, how do the Castration Judges explain the glass shard imbedded in the inside shutter, the one that opens toward the room?

  6. #7881

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    ^
    Actually, the page you posted has an excellent link to the break-in.

    http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/RonHendry------2.html

    Among other things, how do the Castration Judges explain the glass shard imbedded in the inside shutter, the one that opens toward the room?

    I read that too, but for the purpose of THIS post, I focused on how the Massei report DID discount the window as a potential point of entry in response to Fab's calling Dougm out as a liar.

  7. #7882

    Default

    Eddhead...if you can't show us in bold where Massei claims that:

    "it was basically not possible for Rudy Guede to have climbed into that window, because it is too high off the ground."

    Then would you please c&p the the sentence(s) that say that.

    Massei dismisses the breaking in from the window for many reasons... but the impossibilty of making that climb because it is too high off the ground is not one of them.

  8. #7883

    Default

    Do any of his "many" reasons have anything to do with evidence? I know one of the reasons by the Castration Judges is that nothing was stolen. Is that even true, or do they mean taken from Filomena's room? And what's the difference anyway; is that considered evidence of anything?

    How does Massei dismiss the glass shard in the interior shutter, or the impact damage?


  9. #7884

    Default

    Some guy in Texas who had nothing to do with trial looks at internet photos from the crime scene (click on photo below), scribbles a few arrows and declares "The red arrow points to a fresh appearing impact site at a corner edge of the inside solid wood shutter. Crushed or powdered glass appears embedded in this small impact site."

    Oh. There appears to be glass. Not "glass was found". There appears to be a fresh impact. Etc.

    Where was any of this brought up during the trial?

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	filomenaroom%20%206%20.jpg 
Views:	152 
Size:	38.0 KB 
ID:	17678

  10. #7885

    Default

    ^
    Typical dismissal, while avoiding the evidence.

    So where is it?

  11. #7886

    Default

    And I see Jesus' reflection in the window. Good grief.

  12. #7887

    Default

    It's amazing that when you consider the total lack of evidence presented by the prosecution - the fact there wasn't any comprehensive search outside for glass, or the general lack of securing the crime scene, or not even a clear description of how the crime occurred - that a guilter would focus on the the phrase "appears to be."

    How ironic. The entire case "appears to be."

    Eddhead is right. You're deluded.

  13. #7888

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fabrizio View Post
    And I see Jesus' reflection in the window. Good grief.
    Dismissal on top of dismissal.

  14. #7889

    Default

    Red and blue arrows scribbled over an internet photo by some guy in Texas.

  15. #7890

    Default

    ^
    You've already "dismissed" it. Repeating it just means your tank is again empty.

    Meanwhile, we're still waiting for Massei's many reasons.

Similar Threads

  1. London's Congestion Charge Two Years On
    By ablarc in forum News and Politics
    Replies: 192
    Last Post: October 2nd, 2008, 11:43 AM
  2. New Years Eve in Time Square
    By clasione in forum Social Club
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: January 3rd, 2005, 07:18 PM
  3. Airtrain Newark, two years and still growing
    By STT757 in forum New York Metro
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: October 27th, 2003, 11:17 PM
  4. Almost 2 years later, the events of 9.11.01 still hurt
    By Qtrainat1251 in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: September 10th, 2003, 11:34 PM
  5. Where to live? - Possibly moving to NYC in a few years...
    By Jonny in forum Moving to New York
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: May 21st, 2003, 12:48 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software