Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bruce Fisher said:
There is a lot being made out of the photo of Raffaele's kitchen drawer. I use the photo on my site to show readers where the knife was found. I do not see how that photo somehow brings new credibility to an extremely weak piece of evidence.

Once again, there is no need to complicate things. The facts about the knife are very clear. The knife retrieved from Raffaele's kitchen had absolutely nothing to do with the murder of Meredith Kercher.



http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/TheKnife.html
Click to expand...

And yet it had Meredith's DNA on it...
 
If the place was that "messy" to begin with, what evidence is there that Rudy actually intended to burgle something?
 
Bruce Fisher said:
I have to disagree with your statement. Look at the room. Look at the night stand, look at the table, look at the dirty clothes and try and find a way to put them back into the armoire. Try and find a way that those clothes were pulled out of that armoire in the first place.

The photos clearly show that the prosecution's reasoning to allege a staged break in is simply wrong.

With your reasoning, why don't we just ask Amanda if she murdered Meredith? Is that the only way to really know?
Click to expand...
Either that is how she left her room, or it isn't. The only person who knows how Filomena left her room is Filomena. A photo of her room after the murder can't tell us how the room looked before. You can make deductions, other people can make deductions. The only person who knows is Filomena.

Do you have access to Filomena's statements. If you are right about the room they should wrap things up nicely and end any arguments about it.
 
shuttlt said:
Either that is how she left her room, or it isn't. The only person who knows how Filomena left her room is Filomena. A photo of her room after the murder can't tell us how the room looked before. You can make deductions, other people can make deductions. The only person who knows is Filomena.

Do you have access to Filomena's statements. If you are right about the room they should wrap things up nicely and end any arguments about it.
Click to expand...

I have Amanda's statements. She said she didn't kill Meredith. Are we done with this? Do you see that the actual evidence out weighs anything Filomena says about her room?

I clearly showed you that the prosecution's statements about the room were clearly false.

The clothes were not thrown on the floor.

This is very simple. That fact alone refutes the prosecution's theory.
 
Moss said:
If the place was that "messy" to begin with, what evidence is there that Rudy actually intended to burgle something?
Click to expand...

Better yet, where's the evidence that Amanda or Raffaele had anything to do with that broken window?

It makes no difference whether or not Rudy intended to take anything from Filomena's room.

Don't cloud the simple fact that the prosecution's theory is wrong.

You see, I am fighting for Amanda and Raffaele. The more we talk about this case, the more we realize that there is no evidence whatsoever against them.

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have been wrongly convicted.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
Better yet, where's the evidence that Amanda or Raffaele had anything to do with that broken window?

It makes no difference whether or not Rudy intended to take anything from Filomena's room.

Don't cloud the simple fact that the prosecution's theory is wrong.
Click to expand...

Where's the evidence that Rudy had anything to do with that broken window either?

It's always been asserted by the defence that the alleged break in by Rudy was intended as a means to burglarize the flat. Why wouldn't he then search the room he entered through for valuables?

As for clouding the issue: You can assign me any motive you want, I'll ask whatever questions I see fit to satisfy my curiosity regarding the circumstances of the case. Given that I don't have any particular axe to grind when it comes to that case I'll go wherever that may be.


Anyone willing to discuss the physical possibilities when it comes to entering through that window? I may well have been wrong in my thoughts about how to open that window with the pane smashed as it is, but I have a hard time seeing it.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
It didn't have Meredith's DNA on it when it left Raffaele's apartment.
Click to expand...

I'll give you that one. Meredith's DNA was not yet on the knife when Amanda/Raffaele carried it out of his apartment that night.


But then, it did have her DNA on it when the Police carried it out ;)
 
Bruce Fisher said:
I have Amanda's statements. She said she didn't kill Meredith. Are we done with this? Do you see that the actual evidence out weighs anything Filomena says about her room?

I clearly showed you that the prosecution's statements about the room were clearly false.

The clothes were not thrown on the floor.

This is very simple. That fact alone refutes the prosecution's theory.
Click to expand...


No, that fact (as I've explained before) has nothing to do with the prosecution's theory.

I might have missed the responses, but have you even thought about the obvious holes in the Defense's plot? Obvious holes are...well...obvious.
 
BobTheDonkey said:
I'll give you that one. Meredith's DNA was not yet on the knife when Amanda/Raffaele carried it out of his apartment that night.


But then, it did have her DNA on it when the Police carried it out ;)
Click to expand...

So you buy the explanation that Amanda Carried the large kitchen knife in her purse for protection?
 
BobTheDonkey said:
No, that fact (as I've explained before) has nothing to do with the prosecution's theory.

I might have missed the responses, but have you even thought about the obvious holes in the Defense's plot? Obvious holes are...well...obvious.
Click to expand...

What exactly are the holes in the Defense's theory?
 
Moss said:
Where's the evidence that Rudy had anything to do with that broken window either?

It's always been asserted by the defence that the alleged break in by Rudy was intended as a means to burglarize the flat. Why wouldn't he then search the room he entered through for valuables?

As for clouding the issue: You can assign me any motive you want, I'll ask whatever questions I see fit to satisfy my curiosity regarding the circumstances of the case. Given that I don't have any particular axe to grind when it comes to that case I'll go wherever that may be.


Anyone willing to discuss the physical possibilities when it comes to entering through that window? I may well have been wrong in my thoughts about how to open that window with the pane smashed as it is, but I have a hard time seeing it.
Click to expand...


Rudy could have very easily looked through the room for valuables. Who knows? Does it matter?

The prosecution's theory was that those clothes were thrown on the floor and then the window was broken.

That theory is wrong.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
What exactly are the holes in the Defense's theory?
Click to expand...

Check the previous page:

1) No glass in the garden, conversely, no garden dirt in the house (much less window sill, Filomena's room, etc).

2) Amanda or Raffaele could have thrown the rock from either inside or outside of the house.

3) Why didn't Rudy, who knew Amanda, simply knock on the door to find out if anyone was home?

4) Why is there no evidence of Rudy in Filomena's room when he was sloppy enough to leave it in (nearly) every other room in the house (Meredith's room, the hallway, the bathroom)

5) The hole in the glass is not in a location where someone could reach in and unlock the window while hanging on the ledge (at least, not without cutting him/herself)


(for starters, we'll get to the rest once these are satisfactorily answered)
 
Bruce Fisher said:
So you buy the explanation that Amanda Carried the large kitchen knife in her purse for protection?
Click to expand...

No, I buy the theory that the knife was used to murder Meredith.

Frankly, I don't know why Amanda had it that night (and neither do you) and I'd love to give her the benefit of the doubt and allow that it was for protection rather than the subscribe to the more ominous theory that Amanda carried it with her specifically for that night's activities - but that could just by my humanity at work again...
 
BobTheDonkey said:
No, I buy the theory that the knife was used to murder Meredith.

Frankly, I don't know why Amanda had it that night (and neither do you) and I'd love to give her the benefit of the doubt and allow that it was for protection rather than the subscribe to the more ominous theory that Amanda carried it with her specifically for that night's activities - but that could just by my humanity at work again...
Click to expand...

Logic never comes in to play with you? You know she did it and it doesn't matter how or why?

I will be back on later to answer your list above. I have to sign off for now.
 
Leskie reconsidered

Fiona said:
So what exactly do you hope to achieve? I am genuinely curious
Click to expand...

There are several reasons. One of which is that I have reconsidered the Jaidyn Leskie case, and I have decided that it more closely parallels the present one than I previously realized. Ms. P’s DNA profile was found on two pieces of Jaidyn’s clothing, a bib and some track pants. This result that is attributed to contamination on the basis that Ms. P lived hundreds of miles away from the crime and never left her village.

However, she could have lived next door to the Leskie family, and contamination would still be a likely explanation for finding her DNA on the toddler’s clothing. Jaidyn’s body was found submerged in water for at least one month. These conditions are very bad for preservation of DNA evidence. Significantly, none of Jaidyn’s DNA was recovered from his clothing. This should have been a reason to suspect contamination earlier. The no-blood knife is similar to Jaidyn’s clothing in that no DNA was there at the time of collection either; it was most likely deposited in the lab. The more closely the two cases are seen to resemble each other, the easier it is to see why the electronic data files would be helpful. For example, one could use the fsa files to examine other samples along the knife blade and handle using the same threshold value for all samples. I may not convince you, but I may convince others.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
Logic never comes in to play with you? You know she did it and it doesn't matter how or why?

I will be back on later to answer your list above. I have to sign off for now.
Click to expand...

No, see, logic does come into play for me. The only way we'll ever know why she carried it would be for Amanda to tell - but she won't.

Logically, we know that Meredith was never at Raffaele's apartment. Logically, we know that Stefanoni's procedure resulted in an electropherogram that matches Meredith's DNA extremely well - and we know that logically, it's highly unlikely for that DNA to have come from someone else. Logically, we know that there is no reason to not believe Stefanoni.

Logically we know that Amanda and Raffaele cannot explain where either of them were that night.

Believing that Amanda is an innocent angel is highly illogical (a la Spock).
 
three ways to improve forensic science

DNA forensic scientists Norah Rudin and Keith Inman provided a list of ten ways to improve forensics. Here are three that are relevant to the case at hand:

6. Embrace independent review
Primary analysts should not resist or fear independent
review. Reproducibility is a hallmark of science. Because the
nature of physical evidence and our legal system limits true
duplicate analysis of most samples, external independent review
is the next best check and balance on the system. If you
have made a mistake, don’t you want to know?

5. Provide transparency
Secrecy and gamesmanship are inappropriate to the
work of the forensic scientist. All laboratory notes, data, results,
procedures, logs, and records should be open to controlled
and appropriate scrutiny.

1. Pose alternate hypotheses! Ask the right question!
Forensic scientists should aggressively pose alternate
hypotheses. Hypothesis testing and comparison is the very
core of science. The forensic scientist should actively assist the
client to ask the right question(s) in the context of the case.
The most brilliant answer to the wrong question will be irrelevant!

http://www.forensicdna.com/Articles.htm
 
the lab was full of DNA

BobTheDonkey said:
I'll give you that one. Meredith's DNA was not yet on the knife when Amanda/Raffaele carried it out of his apartment that night.


But then, it did have her DNA on it when the Police carried it out ;)
Click to expand...

More likely the DNA was deposited in the lab.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom