Page 527 of 536 FirstFirst ... 27427477517523524525526527528529530531 ... LastLast
Results 7,891 to 7,905 of 8026

Thread: Amanda Knox gets 26 Years

  1. #7891

    Default

    We're waiting to see where Massei writes that "it was basically not possible for Rudy Guede to have climbed into that window, because it is too high off the ground."

  2. #7892

    Default

    From your own mouth:

    Quote Originally Posted by Fabrizio View Post
    Massei dismisses the breaking in from the window for many reasons...
    I assume he has evidentiary reasons. After all, rumor has it that he's a judge.

  3. #7893

    Default

    "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 the them."

    If you'd like to know his reasons...and there is a number of them ...then read his report.

    BTW: the impossibilty of making that climb because the window is too high off the ground is not one of the them.

  4. #7894

    Default

    Yeah, so...

    Who's on trial here... dougM?

    You made a statement. Back it up.

  5. #7895

    Default

    BTW, being wrong does not automatically make someone a liar. But I can see where that would be important to someone with your delusions about the case.
    Last edited by ZippyTheChimp; October 2nd, 2013 at 06:07 PM.

  6. #7896

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fabrizio View Post
    If you'd like to know his reasons...and there is a number of them ...then read his report.
    Are you that embarrassed to list them?

  7. #7897

    Default

    Because Jupiter was aligned with Mars, because it was the 1st of Never...it's all in there...you can read the report for your self. One thing for sure: among his silly reasons, the impossibilty of making that climb because it is too high off the ground is not one of the them.

  8. #7898

    Default

    I have read the report. Long ago.

    Found nothing credible (evidentiary) that would lead to a dismissal of a break-in. Not about to revisit trash from a Loony Judge.

    I didn't expect much of a substantive response from you; at least you didn't disappoint.

    Take care of that empty tank.

    Goodbye.

  9. #7899

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    I have read the report. Long ago.

    Found nothing credible (evidentiary) that would lead to a dismissal of a break-in. Not about to revisit trash from a Loony Judge.
    The ones wanting to make a revisit are you and Doug.

    Complete with a video about nothing and internet photos with arrows pointing to what some guy in Texas feels is "embedded glass". Claims that Massei said it was impossible to make that climb because the window is too high off the ground (which he never said). As well as a bizzarre request asking me to list the reasons Massei dismisses the break-in.
    Last edited by Fabrizio; October 3rd, 2013 at 07:39 AM.

  10. #7900

    Default

    You're right about one thing - since you've never provided much, it certainly is bizarre of me to request any evidence from you.

    Yep, everyone is more concerned with Doug as liar or the credentials of "some guy in Texas," rather than a pivotal issue in this case.

    Besides any evidence he might have had, I wonder how Massei dismisses any lack of evidence, like how much glass was found on the ground outside below the broken window. Did the Scientific Police (I love how ironically non-descriptive that title is) even bother to search, or were they too busy kicking around a bra clasp for several weeks?

    I'm not sure where this came from, but I don't think it's Texas. Plate glass shattering from impact:



    The laws of mechanics are universal, even in Medieval Perugia.

    BTW: The image isn't an "internet photo;" it's a crime scene photo. And curious that you go one about what you seem to imply is not glass, but nothing about the fresh paint removal (red arrow). Did Massei mention that, dismiss it? He sure went on about the swollen wood of the outer shutter.

    You behave like a perfect duplicate of the trial(s) - a lot of diversion and theories, but not much substance. A couple of Dog & Pony shows.

  11. #7901

    Default

    Not that this is germane at this point, but the fact is Massei does allude to the height of the wall as being an obsacle when he explicitly mentions its height in conjucnture with outlining his theoritical sequence of events necessary for the window to be the entry point. The fact that he explicitly mentioned that Guede would have to scale a wall was 3.5 meters in height to gain entry is a clear indication that he saw the height of the wall as an obstacle. You don't have to draw a picture to draw a conclusion.

    But all of that misses the poing. The gist of Dougm's post was the debunking the Massei report's myth that entering through the window was difficult. Instead of responding to that point you chose to play with syntax, focus on a technicality and redirect everyone's attention away from that poin. Than you called him a liar. I'll bet you stamped your foot, held your breadth, and turned purple too.

  12. #7902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eddhead View Post
    ....the Massei report's myth that entering through the window was difficult.
    No eddhead..."but that it was basically not possible for Rudy Guede to have climbed into that window, because it is too high off the ground.

    Nice try.

  13. #7903

    Default

    Well, at least you didn't call me a liar.

    But still focusing on the technical and on symantix. The fact is, Massei ruled out the possibility of the window as an entry point because of the "difficulty", "unlikelihood, or "impossibilty" of scaling a 3.5 meter wall twice, at least in his mind, prying open the shutter, and breaking the window with a heavy object. The posted vid discounts this logic. That is the germane part of the post, not the nit you focused on.

    Just more of the same .. misdirection, name calling and blind defense of the Italian courts.

  14. #7904

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fabrizio View Post
    No eddhead..."but that it was basically not possible for Rudy Guede to have climbed into that window, because it is too high off the ground.

    Nice try.
    I don't know if this is a cultural difference or what. But to take what I wrote literally to the nth degree, call me a liar, and then proceed to not produce any facts that indicate that the premise of my post was innacurate, that is about as dishonest as you can get.

    I think that the people who have read what I have posted about this case here and elsewhere about this case have seen that I will admit when I make a mistake. I was paraphrasing the Massei argument, and the subsequent arguments ad nauseum online from those who support guilt. No one can deny that it has been argued repeatedly that Rudy Guede would not have broken in through that window because A) It was too difficult to access, due to it's height, the shutters being closed, possibly being spotted from the road, etc.; and B) Because there was nothing found nearby that Rudy could have used to open the shutters -- Massei's reasoning being that someone climbing up to that window to break in would need to open the shutters from the ground first, because it was unlikely they would climb up there twice (because of points raised in "A").

    I have read over and over people who have argued exactly what I posted -- that it is not possible to climb into that window from the ground. Maybe Massei did not say the exact words, "it was basically not possible for Rudy Guede to have climbed into that window, because it is too high off the ground". But, as eddhead pointed out, he said it was high off the ground, the shutters were closed, and that combination was causing him to dismiss the idea that it was a real break in. (that is paraphrasing, in case you don't understand that concept. No, it is not verbatim quotes, but that was the gist of the decision).

    If you don't understand the difference between lying and paraphrasing, or explaining what the basic idea that was argued, is, then it gives me some insight as to why you don't understand much else about this case.

    Basic point. Massei, and many others over the years, claim great significance to the location of the window, the height of it, the shutters being closed (although Filomena testified they were not locked, and were hard to fully close due to warping). It has been made into one of the key points in this trial that the break in was staged, and one of the key supporting points about that is how hard it would be to break in at that window, and how it makes no sense for someone to break in through that window. The video shows that it is easy to climb up to that window, open the shutters without having to climb back down, and it would be quick to get in. The guy even says a person could easily stand up there and remove some of the glass pieces from the window frame, so as to make it easier to climb in. Which matches exactly what Ron Hendry reported in his analysis, the one Zippy pointed out.

    BTW, the same TV show that the window climbing video was from also showed what happens if you throw a rock through a window from the outside or from the inside of the flat. In the first trial, the prosecution claimed that Knox and Sollecito threw the rock through the window from the inside, and Massei agreed that was more likely. Contradicting this is not only the dent in the shutter with the embedded piece of glass, but the glass shards that are distributed several feet into the room. The glass expert on the TV show demonstrated that if the rock was thrown from the outside, glass pieces would end up several feet into the room, over by Filomena's bed, and lots of other places. Exactly as it shows in the crime scene pictures.

    Of course, the Amanda haters argue that she cleverly planned all this. They say that it is just SO significant that glass was on top of some of the things in the room. Well, it was on top of some things, and under others, which is exactly what I would expect if someone broke in. They have no idea what specific items were in what exact spot before the window was broken. Oh, and Amanda was so clever (all while on drugs), that she planned the faked break in, broke the window with the rock from inside, cleverly found a way to remove all of her DNA, prints, hair, etc. from the murder room -- but was too dumb to not steal something from the room, or to not leave glass on top of clothes.

    This trial is a farce. I would call it a Kangaroo court, but that would be insulting to Kangaroos.

  15. #7905

    Default

    BTW, what Massei actually wrote (paraphrasing here, in case anyone is confused), is that the liklihood that a burglar would break in through that window was low, because of many factors, including the height, the idea that the shutters might be latched, the lack of a tool of some sort to open the shutters, and the need to climb up multiple times. (he also used the phrase "excludes the possiblity", but I digress).

    The video I posted clearly refutes all of the above, except for the idea that the shutters might have been latched. Since Filomena testified in court they were not latched, I believe that takes care of that one.

    Massei also made much of the points that there were no smudges on the wall, and that there was a nail in the wall that was untouched. The video shows that neither of those would matter, either. The guy climbs right up, lickety split. And it is a lot easier to stand on that lower window edge than anyone thought. I was surprised it was that easy.

    Of course, the defense should have done this demonstration years ago, but ...

    Watch the video again. Climbing up to that window is easy, and the burglar could be in the flat in less than a minute.

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