• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fulcanelli said:
Not Fulcanelli's word, but PMF's. You take ABC's, CNN's, Fox's word for things every day...what's the difference?

I'll tell you. PMF specialise in this case, it has worked on it 24 hours a day, 7 days a week since the crime occurred. The others are jack of many but master of none. If that doesn't get the baby in, nothing will. But then, there's no pleasing some people.
Click to expand...

A message board is not a reliable source. PMF has done a good job at finding and translating articles, I will give them credit for that.
 
HumanityBlues said:
Interesting you say this. Please indulge us with what allows a witness to be deemed competent to testify in a Perugian murder trial? Do you actually know the legal standard?
Click to expand...

Well since the content of certain media articles were quoted in the trial, not to mention the written testimony of certain witnesses in absentia (Christian for example), I would imagine he'd have got in with no problems...had he come forward. But like I said, he chose not to. He didn't feel it his place. And really, would you leap at the chance of helping put someone down for life? These are the sort of things this person had to think about. I can sympathise. Can you?
 
Fulcanelli said:
Well since the content of certain media articles were quoted in the trial, not to mention the written testimony of certain witnesses in absentia (Christian for example), I would imagine he'd have got in with no problems...had he come forward. But like I said, he chose not to. He didn't feel it his place. And really, would you leap at the chance of helping put someone down for life? These are the sort of things this person had to think about. I can sympathise. Can you?
Click to expand...

Yes. I can absolutely sympathize with a person in that position. And were it me, I would also think twice about it too and probably would not want to be named. But unfortunately, that's what we're left with. Unreliable thirdhand hearsay from a message board.

Do you honestly believe that the Italian judiciary wouldn't distinguish between admitting a newspaper article and admitting a back and forth conversation on a message board? You do see there is a big difference don't you?
 
Last edited:
shuttlt said:
But who is claiming it? The New Scientist article isn't peer reviewed or anything, it's just repeating the open letter. The only sources for the "there is no blood" claim are the Innocence Project and one of the defence experts.

...

...It would be nice if they would produce something a little more detailed to explain their reasoning. Otherwise we are just left with them asserting stuff that it is very hard to check.
Click to expand...


You may be interested to contact the writer of "Science Spheres" with regards to corroboration on the forensics testing on the knife. See what you think about his work. He is not associated with the open letter and wrote his blog long before the open letter was written.
 
HumanityBlues said:
Yes. I can absolutely sympathize with a person in that position. And were it me, I would also think twice about it too and probably would not want to be named. But unfortunately, that's what we're left with. Unreliable thirdhand hearsay from a message board.

Do you honestly believe that the Italian judiciary wouldn't distinguish between admitting a newspaper article and admitting a back and forth conversation on a message board? You do see there is a big difference don't you?
Click to expand...


The back and forth wasn't on a message board, but via direct contact.

In any case, I feel this particular debate has gone as far as it can go here and that it may be best that we move on.
 
Open Inquiry said:
You may be interested to contact the writer of "Science Spheres" with regards to corroboration on the forensics testing on the knife. See what you think about his work. He is not associated with the open letter and wrote his blog long before the open letter was written.
Click to expand...

Alternatively, you could read the previous posts in this thread :rolleyes:
 
Fulcanelli said:
Alternatively, you could read the previous posts in this thread :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

But that still leaves my question unanswered. On what grounds IF there was no blood on the knife, and IF it was not premeditated, is it included in the evidence? (I didn't know that the presence of blood on the knife was in question. I thought that was common knowledge. In fact, I believe it was stated as such by the prosecution. I'll look for where I saw that.)

So I'll ask it a different way. If the question of the presence of blood was proven and accepted to be negative, after the Massei Report, how can the knife be included? And I'm really asking... Not making a statement. Wondering if there are any grounds to include it and what those are.

___

I have another question about the knife. The wound is said to be possible to have been inflicted with that knife, but what about the absence of any other marks you would expect to find from that knife?

Also, is it odd to anyone that someone would rejoin it with usable cutlery in a drawer?
 
I thought the grounds the knife was included before was premeditation. Since the it was premeditated, and the knife was brought to the cottage, the it is implicated by the LCN DNA test, even without blood.
 
Last edited:
The logic of the question is as follows. This is the argument.

“If someone had a knife covered in blood and they tried to clean it very well, they would remove their ability to detect the DNA before they removed the ability to detect the chemical traces of blood.” Therefore, the lack of blood makes it impossible for there to be DNA on the knife, so the DNA that was observed has to arise from contamination." - Elizabeth A. Johnson, Ph.D on Good Morning America


It is actually a question to anyone proposing the DNA came from something other than lab contamination during LCN DNA testing, never before attempted in Italy, and in a lab not prepared for LCN DNA testing. How do you answer regarding that? Is the answer that it didn't actually test negative for blood? Or that it was indeterminable whether it was blood or not? And if it is not valid evidence, what business did it ever have to be presented as a murder weapon? Who made that decision? What was the chain of decision-making on that?
 
Open Inquiry said:
But that still leaves my question unanswered. On what grounds IF there was no blood on the knife, and IF it was not premeditated, is it included in the evidence?
Click to expand...

Well, verdicts are not decided on 'ifs'.

As for premeditated...premeditated 'what'? You need to define exactly what you mean by premeditated. I'm not being flippant here...it's important.
 
Fulcanelli said:
Well, verdicts are not decided on 'ifs'.

As for premeditated...premeditated 'what'? You need to define exactly what you mean by premeditated. I'm not being flippant here...it's important.
Click to expand...

I thought the reason the knife could be included even though it tested negative for blood was that it was argued to be a premeditated murder or a premeditated attack on Meredith.
 
Open Inquiry said:
The logic of the question is as follows. This is the argument.

“If someone had a knife covered in blood and they tried to clean it very well, they would remove their ability to detect the DNA before they removed the ability to detect the chemical traces of blood.” Therefore, the lack of blood makes it impossible for there to be DNA on the knife, so the DNA that was observed has to arise from contamination." - Elizabeth A. Johnson, Ph.D on Good Morning America


It is actually a question to anyone proposing the DNA came from something other than lab contamination during LCN DNA testing, never before attempted in Italy, and in a lab not prepared for LCN DNA testing. How do you answer regarding that? Is the answer that it didn't actually test negative for blood? Or that it was indeterminable whether it was blood or not? And if it is not valid evidence, what business did it ever have to be presented as a murder weapon? Who made that decision? What was the chain of decision-making on that?
Click to expand...


Never before attempted anywhere. Science is progressive...didn't you know?

Regarding contamination...'where' did it come from? Why was it not contaminated with anything or anyone else? Hoew is it it hit the jackpot...of only one person, Meredith Kercher? If controls were not in place, shouldn't the DNA of many different persons have been found on that knife? Therefore, how come it was the profile of only one person...the victim? How is it that this contamination only got into a microscopic scratch in the knife and not anywhere else on the blade...contamination bullseye?

This rules out bad controls or contamination, especially when the potential for contamination was mere centimetres away...Amanda's DNA on the handle, Dr Stefanoni's...who tested it...the police officer who collected it. Their DNA was not on the blade...how is that possible? Yet, we are supposed to expect that Meredith's DNA floated down through the lab, landed on the knife, settling into the depths of a micro crack in the blade?

Fine, if that all sounds plausible to you.

PS: In your contact with Science Spheres...did you ask him what his qualifications in genetics are? Remind us.
 
Fulcanelli said:
Well, verdicts are not decided on 'ifs'.
Click to expand...

The Massei Report says it was not premeditated, so that is not an if, it is a "since". "If" is defined as "since" in that context. In other words, "If it is a given that it was not premeditated, since it is not according to the verdict, reason for the sentence, it was not".

And as for the blood on the knife, I am asking a question at the fork of the road in the discussion. I am saying, in the case that the road forks to negative for blood, then what is the legal status as evidence?
 
Fulcanelli said:
He's of course free to do so. For myself, I've spoken with him many times. It wasn't very illuminating.
Click to expand...

Still, in the spirit of open inquiry, Shuttit might like to ask him questions. The logic can answer for itself. ie the logic in what he says. Shuttit can determine that for himself and decide for himself what he thinks about what he says in reply to Shuttit's questions.
 
Open Inquiry said:
I thought the reason the knife could be included even though it tested negative for blood was that it was argued to be a premeditated murder or a premeditated attack on Meredith.
Click to expand...

No, the knife was considered key evidence because it had Amanda Knox's DNA on the handle and Meredith Kercher's DNA on the blade and because it matched the fatal wound in Meredith's neck.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom