That's a serious hole in the guilt scenario. I hope someone has an answer.
Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#8
- Thread starter Harmony 2
- Start date
- Status
That's a serious hole in the guilt scenario. I hope someone has an answer.
As for the bbm part:
The Perugian doctor who does the climb has a foothold on the lower window all the time:
Also, obviously his hands are on top of the windowsill when he hoists himself up:
I'm not sure I understand what do you mean by saying that what the video shows is impossible when it's clearly demonstrated to be possible, even easy.
Let's assume it is impossible, for the sake of discussion: does it mean you also think the guy demonstrating the climb is suspended by invisible wires or supported by some hidden platform, like Otto suggested?
I don't know, Katody. That's why I'm saying it's completely useless, because it is. It doesn't clarify things for me at all.
Look at the picture. Okay, his foot is on the bottom ledge thing. He is holding the upper sill by his fingers. Let's say he pushes up through his feet, using the bottom ledge to push off. He still needs to pull himself up using the strength in his arms. It's not like a swimming pool, where you have the whole of the concrete to support your arms as you hoist up. He does not have the upper windowsill in a position to support his arms. He is hanging, he needs to PULL HIMSELF UP. His arms are outstretched above him. That means he needs to PULL HIS ARMS UP. That means he needs to PULL HIS BODYWEIGHT UP.
Without showing it the whole way through, the point when he actually get himself up onto the windowill, how do we know whether he did or not?? I don't know what happened, I don't have a "conspiracy theory," which is what you want me to say so that everyone can come back and said all pro-guilt believers believe in "conspiracy theories." I do not know.
I do not know what happened. I know that it is easy for us to sit behind our computers and say, oh yes, that's easy. Climbing the wall, look that guy did it. But when I think logically, I think no, it is NOT EASY to pull yourself up by the weight of your fingertips. Anyone who's done any weight-lifting/exercise knows this.
It is not easy. If Rudy climbed that wall, it was because he would have the muscular strength/physicality to do so. That's why we can't compare it to a small Italian guy doing it, when we can't even see the point where he actually uses his arm strength to pull himself off!
That's my answer to all of this.
The video is completely useless. They could have at least gotten a guy with a similar height/build.
It is indeed difficult to believe that so many professionals would have been paid off to make a deceptive film.You avoided that part of my question:
You're not seriously saying he wouldn't be able to go into the window from that position if not for the bars that block the way?
At what moment again? He hoists himself up and lowers himself back without any cuts.
Of course you don't. You would have to come up with something plausible and that's not easy to do.
At least you don't say he was suspended on hidden wires, like Otto does.
What you suggest however is seriously unethical and deceptive. It's hard to imagine why would a British TV station pay for something like this. It's hard to imagine all these people would willingly take part in it without protests. Especially the Perugian doctor that does the demonstration and is identified by name in the video.
I would just say, 'Yes, Guede could have climbed in that window. Yes, indeed - but we believe he did not and it was staged. '
Why does anyone need to say Guede could not have climbed in that way?
Just say, 'he could have, but he did not as the room was staged. '
What if the window had been only 3 feet off the ground? And was obviously easy access, but the room still looked staged?
Either the room looked staged or it didn't. The window is secondary.
Presupposing innocence:
They were not waiting for Filomena at all. They didn't care about the door and did not feel MK was in any danger. She was just out. (although her phones had been found in a ravine down the road)
Presupposing guilt:
They were not waiting for Filomena. They simply were waiting for someone to break down the door, but they didn't feel it should be them to ask the police, as this might serve as a tip off that they know MK was dead behind that door. Better to delay it until someone finally demanded it be opened (just happened to be Filomean who did).
*Note: In her email home, Amanda did express some urgency over the locked door (initially thought MK sleeping, which is reasonable) but as more signs of things being amiss, panicked and had Sollecito try and kick in. So why didn't they demand that of Postal Police immediately? Suspicious. ( Prosecutor Mignini did argue all the above in court. I can see why he felt it was somewhat suspicious. He then coupled it with Amanda's story about meeting "Patrick" at the basketball courts (who "wanted Meredith") and then going for drinking and 'fun' at the cottage with MK, and then her being assaulted ans stabbed. He plugged in Guded in place of Patrick. And this is where his theory came from. )
Because it's on the video in full? How can you say it's not shown? The single, uninterrupted take of the video from 1:30 to 1:50 is showing just that in detail.
He pulls himself up and then pushes himself above the windowsill. One single video take.
:facepalm:
Amber29
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,358
- Reaction score
- 357
You avoided that part of my question:
You're not seriously saying he wouldn't be able to go into the window from that position if not for the bars that block the way?
At what moment again? He hoists himself up and lowers himself back without any cuts.
Of course you don't. You would have to come up with something plausible and that's not easy to do.
At least you don't say he was suspended on hidden wires, like Otto does.
What you suggest however is seriously unethical and deceptive. It's hard to imagine why would a British TV station pay for something like this. It's hard to imagine all these people would willingly take part in it without protests. Especially the Perugian doctor that does the demonstration and is identified by name in the video.
Katody
Here is my answer. IF he were able to make it up on the ledge WITHOUT using the bars, from there he would be able to get in the window.
I am completely SERIOUS when I say I DON'T believe he was able to reach the ledge in this way. The camera does in fact cut away and not show it. If IMO he made it freely without the use of the bars, there was no reason to cut away from him doing so.
I would appreciate it if my posts would stop being referred to as a joke (by insinuating I cant be serious) or that I don't want to answer Because I have no plausible reasonning.
I have answered everything you've asked repeatedly.
I am not suggest they were unethical, viewers are mislead by media outlets ALL the time. I don't know their motivation anymore than I know ANY journalist/reporter/authors motivation for doing pieces on this case. Maybe it's simply to attract viewers/readers. That is what I meant by I don't care what their motivation is because IMO their video proves NOTHING.
I see that as being something of a contradiction. We know that family, friends and roommates all remarked that Meredith was upset that Knox did not fulfil her chores and responsibilities with cleaning. Is it really possible that Knox assumed, without question, that Meredith would leave such a mess in the bathroom, but at the same time she understood Meredith to be concerned about cleanliness?
It seems to me that, knowing there had been a dispute about bathroom cleanliness, Knox should be rather surprised that Meredith would leave a mess on the bathroom floor. That alone, in my opinion, should have been another red flag for Knox that all was not as it should be.
Amber29
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,358
- Reaction score
- 357
Please stop stating that it shows this uninterrupted from1:30 to 1:50.
That is not a true statement.
The video shows him reaching the windowsill without problem. There is one single take from 1:30 to 1:50 showing it. What cut are you talking about? Could you give a timestamp?
Amber29
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,358
- Reaction score
- 357
Ok just past the 1:47 mark he reaches the ledge with his hands and attempts to pull himself up.
He fails and lowers himself back down.
The camera moves from him to the lawyers
The next time the show him, he is sitting on the ledge holding the bars.
The video DOES NOT show him actually hoisting himself up without the bars. Period.
They leave this thought to their viewers.
You believe it and I don't and I am completely serious.
Additionally, as I pointed out yesterday, there's nothing for him to stand on when he's at the left side of Filomina's window. The window below is only under the right side of Filomina's window. There's something very fishy about the video. The words suggest that it's no problem for someone to climb to the window without bars, but that is never demonstrated. When he's holding himself up with four fingers, the rest of his body appears to be simply floating, not braced against the wall preventing a fall.
It seems to be a situation of "believe what I say, not what you see". There would be no reason to edit the footage if what is claimed is actually possible. The truth is that even a climbing enthusiast could not scale the wall without using the newly installed bars.
Let's just say for a moment that the video might be misleading - intentionally or not.
Whether or not it is, is there anyone here who would still believe the burglary had been simulated, if it could in fact be proven that Guede could climb in that window (let's say Mignini made a film showing Guede scaling it and making it in).
Whether or not it is, is there anyone here who would still believe the burglary had been simulated, if it could in fact be proven that Guede could climb in that window (let's say Mignini made a film showing Guede scaling it and making it in).
Amber29
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,358
- Reaction score
- 357
ITA I also find it questionable that it is shot from the waist up at the point we are talking about.
At no point in the video does it show the climb all the way through without the use of the bars.
Maybe they should have chose a regular guy off the streets with a similar build to RG and filmed him the WHOLE climb without using the newly installed bars.
Amber29
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,358
- Reaction score
- 357
If it were proven that RG made that climb that night, there would still be the evidence inside the room (or lack there of) but I would be a little more inclined to believe it.
IMO this window was not the logical window to break in from in the first place.
RGs MO was actually an option for him and for some reason we are to believe he declined the easier option for a 2nd story climb up a wall.
Aaah I see now.
So you consider this a fail:
In your opinion there's no way he would be able to enter the window from this position if the bars were not in the way. Do I understand you correctly?
What should he do from that point to make you believe it's possible that he didn't do?
Amber29
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,358
- Reaction score
- 357
Aaah I see now.
So you consider this a fail:
In your opinion there's no way he would be able to enter the window from this position if the bars were not in the way. Do I understand you correctly?
Are you under the impression that RG went from this position to inside the house?
It's not that simple
Yes right after that mark the climber LOWERS himself back down and the camera cuts to the lawyers.
At the 1:50 1:51 mark.
That's not really an answer to my question:
In your opinion there's no way he would be able to enter the window from this position if the bars were not in the way? What should he do from that point to make you believe it's possible that he didn't do?
I think from that position it's trivial to either go inside or squat or sit on the windowsill given there are no bars blocking the window.
Amber29
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,358
- Reaction score
- 357
I have answered you, my word. My post #67 covers this.
What should he do from what point? He has yet to prove to me the climb can even be made freely.
Do I think RG sat on the window sill the way the climber did before climbing in? NO
The window still had to be unlatched or something similar by reaching in. There was glass all over the window sill and none brushed off/fallen on the ground. I don't think RG was on that window ledge.
I DO NOT believe the climber reached the ledge without the use of the bars and the video is NOT prove that it's possible. IMO.
Also, a fact of the case is that there is a layer of glass on the window sill at the exact location where the climbing enthusiast is leaning his arms. We know that no one leaned on that part of the window sill because the glass was undisturbed, and there was not a shard of glass on the dirt below the window. The video simulation seems to have neglected to include the facts of the case, and instead successfully demonstrates that a climber can scale the wall if there are bars in the upper window - which has nothing to do with the case.
- Status