Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[shuttlt]

So about the bra clasp?

Couldn't the second cut be made by placing the strap on the floor and sawing it off? Or you could stand on the clasp to get the necessary tension?

 

[Kestrel]

Couldn't the second cut be made by placing the strap on the floor and sawing it off? Or you could stand on the clasp to get the necessary tension?

It's not like the bra clasp was welded shut. I haven't seen a photo of the other side of this one, but it' probably little more than a hook and loop working against the elastic tension of the strap.

I also note that Fiona changes her theories about DNA depending on the situation. Earlier, she was of the opinion that DNA can't be left left by simply touching things. Now she is claiming that Rudy couldn't have unhooked a bra clasp without leaving a chunk of his DNA.

The sample taken from the bra clasp indicated DNA from several different persons. Must have been really crowded in that little room. Or the sample was contaminated by the clumsy actions of the technicians that retrieved it.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I also note that Fiona changes her theories about DNA depending on the situation. Earlier, she was of the opinion that DNA can't be left left by simply touching things. Now she is claiming that Rudy couldn't have unhooked a bra clasp without leaving a chunk of his DNA.

You're being dishonest in your argument here. Fiona was being no such thing. There is a big difference between simply 'touching' something and taking something in a hard 'grip' in order to cut next to it. The latter, gripping, is far for likely to leave DNA then the former, mere touching. Gripping involves pressure and friction, the required elements to leave DNA.

The sample taken from the bra clasp indicated DNA from several different persons. Must have been really crowded in that little room.

Again, the very basis of your argument is dishonest. You are comparing apples and oranges. The other profiles were 'trace' and therefore could have easily come about due to general shared living (including laundry facilities) with other house mates before the murder took place, unlike Raffaele's whose profile was complete, in a large amount that could have only have come about via direct contact and had NO business being there.

How about approaching the debate in good faith Kestrel?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Or the sample was contaminated by the clumsy actions of the technicians that retrieved it.

You are making accusations here. Therefore, back them up with evidence rather then weasel words.

 

[quadraginta]

So, he had a phone from the burglary. That doesn't prove he burgled the office. In fact all the evidence proves he didn't. First of all, it was a 'professional' job (the burglar alarm had been disabled) and second of all, the 'break-in' at the cottage was faked, as proven in court. Finally, you harp on and on about Rudy's bloody fingerprints all over the crime scene yet fail to even attempt to explain why micro traces of blood were not found on the phones. Instead, we get a completely implausible 'explanation' of why he'd have taken the phones, but left the items of real value.

But, it seems rather contradictory to me Kestrel how you are perfectly happy to try and convict Rudy of burglary on the flimsiest of evidence, yet for Raffaele and Amanda where there is more evidence by an order of magnitude and has actually been through multiple Italian courts and lead to a guilty conviction in a full 11 month trial you don't believe the evidence against them to be 'enough'.

So Kestrel, please tell me, why is your bar raised so high for Raffaele and Amanda, but so low for Rudy Guede? I'm just asking, since you raised the question of double standards earlier.

 

[Fiona]

It's not like the bra clasp was welded shut. I haven't seen a photo of the other side of this one, but it' probably little more than a hook and loop working against the elastic tension of the strap.

Have you tried it? I have. I recommend it

 

[Fulcanelli]

It's not like the bra clasp was welded shut. I haven't seen a photo of the other side of this one, but it' probably little more than a hook and loop working against the elastic tension of the strap.

Yet another assumption. You make a lot of those. But then, who needs actual facts when you can simply assume and postulate those assumptions as fact with the word 'probably'. Inspired.

 

[Kestrel]

How about approaching the debate in good faith Kestrel?

How about some good faith from you?

For example, go back in this thread a bit where I asked for the text of the message Amanda sent to Patrick. Your first response was to tell me to go find it myself, reversing the burden of proof. Then you provided a link to a multiple page document in Italian, complete with more insults. A courteous JREF poster would have provided a direct quote along with that link.

This has been your tactic in this entire thread. You are too quick with insults and too slow backing up your claims.

I also note that you haven't joined any other threads on JREF. As if you were here with an agenda instead of a polite discussion of the facts.

So how about toning down the silly games and showing that you belong here?

 

[Kestrel]

Yet another assumption. You make a lot of those. But then, who needs actual facts when you can simply assume and postulate those assumptions as fact with the word 'probably'. Inspired.

If you had a background in science or logic, you would recognize the value of clearly stating assumptions.

 

[Fiona]

If you had a background in science or logic, you would recognize the value of clearly stating assumptions.

That is the strangest way of saying "making up stories" I have yet seen

 

[Fiona]

Couldn't the second cut be made by placing the strap on the floor and sawing it off? Or you could stand on the clasp to get the necessary tension?

You have to have tension on it to cut cloth. So just placing it on the floor woud not work. You could indeed stand on it. But it is not a very natural thing to do IMO (by which I mean that when I tried this that particular approach did not occur to me). What do you think is more likely?

 

[Kestrel]

You are making accusations here. Therefore, back them up with evidence rather then weasel words.

The evidence that the technicians were clumsy was in the video discussed earlier in this thread. They dropped the clasp on the floor among other things.

 

[quadraginta]

How about some good faith from you?

For example, go back in this thread a bit where I asked for the text of the message Amanda sent to Patrick. Your first response was to tell me to go find it myself, reversing the burden of proof. Then you provided a link to a multiple page document in Italian, complete with more insults. A courteous JREF poster would have provided a direct quote along with that link.

This has been your tactic in this entire thread. You are too quick with insults and too slow backing up your claims.

I also note that you haven't joined any other threads on JREF. As if you were here with an agenda instead of a polite discussion of the facts.

So how about toning down the silly games and showing that you belong here?

I have seen no claims made by Fulcanelli that he has been unable to back up. OTOH you are prone to do that with great frequency, and then when asked to demonstrate a willingness to perform some research of your own that is not directly provided by FOA talking points you feign offense.

Now you fault Fulcanelli for joining the forum to participate in a thread which he has interest in and has invested time to become knowledgeable about in detail.

I suspect that many valuable participants in these fora have become members due to an initial desire to share their expertise in a specific subject. Why do you consider this to be an indictment? He has backed up his contributions with reason and data. You skip from allegation to allegation without any effort to defend them in detail. When confronted with clear reason and evidence you simply change allegations.

It is really quite humorous to see you challenge his integrity. A very transparent last resort.

 

[Fulcanelli]

How about some good faith from you?

How is my debate in bad faith? I debate with actual facts and logic. When people as me questions, I answer them. I don't fire talking points at people and quick change to another when that talking point is shown to be false. If I make a mistake I acknowledge it. I have an opinion which is informed, since I've reached it 'after' learning the facts of the case, rather then the other way around. Neither do I nitpick or force the debate around in circles. My goal is nothing more or less than truth as I have no dog in this fight. How is my debate dishonest?

For example, go back in this thread a bit where I asked for the text of the message Amanda sent to Patrick. Your first response was to tell me to go find it myself, reversing the burden of proof.

Why should I or anyone else go around running after you Kestrel, when I've put in the time and effort to learn the facts of this case, yet you demand it handed to you on a plate and the only time you can be bothered to do any research is when it's to retrieve the next talking point? Why should I and others jump when you snap 'cite' when you do barely above zero yourself?

I also note that you haven't joined any other threads on JREF.

Is that a bad thing? Why? It is better to be master of one thing then jack of all and master of none. That's what works for me personally. When I talk about a thing, I like to ensure I know what I'm talking about and there are only so many hours in a day. Some of those need to be taken out for less important things...eating, washing, paying taxes...boring stuff like that. Why do I need to justify myself to you? Why are you suddenly so defensive?

So how about toning down the silly games and showing that you belong here?

'Show that I belong here'? Does that require a ceremony? Do I have to stand on one leg, learn a new handshake...stuff like that?

 

[Kestrel]

You have to have tension on it to cut cloth. So just placing it on the floor woud not work. You could indeed stand on it. But it is not a very natural thing to do IMO (by which I mean that when I tried this that particular approach did not occur to me). What do you think is more likely?

Why are you assuming that the bra clasp wasn't cut off while the bra was on Meredith?

 

[Fulcanelli]

The evidence that the technicians were clumsy was in the video discussed earlier in this thread. They dropped the clasp on the floor among other things.

Shock, horror, they dropped the clasp. That doesn't explain Raffaele's DNA on it.

They dropped it because they weren't gripping it, instead they were trying to handle it as gently and by the edges as much as possible. But really, that's a poor argument to try and say they were incompetent, kind of desperate in fact.

 

[Fiona]

Why are you assuming that the bra clasp wasn't cut off while the bra was on Meredith?

Because it can't be? That is my main reason. Well my only one actually

 

[scissorhands]

How about some good faith from you?

For example, go back in this thread a bit where I asked for the text of the message Amanda sent to Patrick. Your first response was to tell me to go find it myself, reversing the burden of proof. Then you provided a link to a multiple page document in Italian, complete with more insults. A courteous JREF poster would have provided a direct quote along with that link.

This has been your tactic in this entire thread. You are too quick with insults and too slow backing up your claims.

I also note that you haven't joined any other threads on JREF. As if you were here with an agenda instead of a polite discussion of the facts.

So how about toning down the silly games and showing that you belong here?

You are on really thin ice here kestrel.
Would it make fulcanelli more acceptable to you if he/she had devoted more time to pentagon flyover theories or homeopathy during his visit?
You want a jack of all trades?
The fact that you are having to be educated by someone who actually knows about the perugia case in detail, should give you pause for thought about that.

 

[Kestrel]

Because it can't be? That is my main reason. Well my only one actually

Care to share your reasoning with the rest of us?

 

[Fiona]

You are the scientist, Kestrel. Go and try it