Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Is everyone aware that the window climbing debate is really only an online issue? This debate is talked about frequently online but it isn't mentioned in Amanda's appeal. This won't be a factor on appeal. The prosecution did not dispute that the window could be entered. The evidence in the room is much more important than climbing the wall.

The photographs that I provided detailed the inside of the room.
 
Fulcanelli said:
Oh for crying out loud, Kermit posted his ID card which has his height on it...here!:

[qimg]http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image.php?album_id=18&image_id=1177[/qimg]

If only you exercised the same standard of evidence you demand of others when you make your own unsupported assertions. Hypocrisy much?
Click to expand...

I thought we were trying to tone down this type of language.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
Is everyone aware that the window climbing debate is really only an online issue? This debate is talked about frequently online but it isn't mentioned in Amanda's appeal. This won't be a factor on appeal. The prosecution did not dispute that the window could be entered. The evidence in the room is much more important than climbing the wall.

The photographs that I provided detailed the inside of the room.
Click to expand...

It's not mentioned in Amanda's appeal because they know it's a lost cause, they can't possibly win any argument of Rudy coming in through the window. Instead, they are all now pinning their hopes on the baby murderer Alessi.

So much for the lone wolf theory.

PS: Yes, you're right, the photos detailed the inside of the room. Cameras do that. Amazing, isn't it?
 
@ Bruce Fisher:I do not agree. It seems to me that this is a problem with the approach some have been taking since the start of this thread. You have to look at the whole picture. The question of a break-in v a staging has to look at the whole context. So whether the window can be entered is one thing: whether the window was broken from the inside or the outside is another; whether the room was disturbed or not is a third; whether anything was taken or not; whether there is evidence of any burglar in any part of the room or on the glass etc is another. And the conclusion is based on the totality of those things: you cannot just treat them in isolation
 
Kermit said:
.
Bruce, one thing you're not good at is spreading falsehoods.

My doubt all along, as reflected in my posts, concerns my suspicion that not all of the 5 supposed shoe prints on the pillow "match perfectly" the Nikes worn by Rudy, as you have repeatedly and vehemently stated.

I know you have the defence presentations and images.

I felt that you weren't posting more than the obvious two matches, because you had overstepped yourself in your vehemency, the other stains not being necessarily "perfect matches".

And you know what? I was right! (BTW, one doesn't have to be a genius to see through the FOA rhetoric. It honestly surprises me that FOA and The Entourage could believe that their antics may win over the hearts of the masses).

[qimg]http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/8020/foaperfectmatch.png[/qimg]
Click to expand...

I am just curious, my photos are talked about with great detail but Kermit put a badly photo shopped picture on here that is a complete joke that simply tries to distort the truth. He also includes an offensive comment about Amanda and this entire group here remains silent.

Here was my response to Kermit.

Is Raffaele's forensic expert FOA?

You took the small sample from the larger picture. You have really made a fool out of yourself with this post.

The prosecution agrees that these prints belong to Rudy. This is not disputed.

No one has ever claimed that Raffaele's print was anywhere on the pillow. Are you making that claim?

You turned the small sample around to "almost" match an area on another shoe. Did you forget that the small sample was taken from a larger image showing more of the print matching Rudy's Nike's?

Why are you trying to prove the prosecution wrong? They agree that these prints match Rudy.

You are simply doing this to try and discredit me. This has absolutely no bearing on the case.

Nice try.
 
Last edited:
Fulcanelli said:
It's not mentioned in Amanda's appeal because they know it's a lost cause, they can't possibly win any argument of Rudy coming in through the window. Instead, they are all now pinning their hopes on the baby murderer Alessi.

So much for the lone wolf theory.

PS: Yes, you're right, the photos detailed the inside of the room. Cameras do that. Amazing, isn't it?
Click to expand...

You have lost any credibility that anyone ever thought you might have had. Your comments have become nothing more than sarcastic rants.
 
Almost anything is possible, Bruce Fisher. Any honest witness giving evidence about an issue will have to concede that. But that a thing can happen does not mean it did. And we are back to the concept of reasonable doubt, which was discussed long ago.
 
Bruce, Are you aware if anyone has studied the acceleration effects that the shade would have had on the glass fragments as it is propelled open by the striking rock?

I think some people have difficulty reconciling that the glass traveled so far into the room yet the rock landed much closer. If the rock expels it's momentum pushing the shade open, that would produce a sudden inrush of air that would blow the glass much further into the room and prevent glass from flying out. The reaction would also deflect the rock to the side away from the shutter.

Of course, I'm sure Raffaele would have thought about all of this to stage the room. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Bruce Fisher said:
Is everyone aware that the window climbing debate is really only an online issue? This debate is talked about frequently online but it isn't mentioned in Amanda's appeal. This won't be a factor on appeal. The prosecution did not dispute that the window could be entered. The evidence in the room is much more important than climbing the wall.

The photographs that I provided detailed the inside of the room.
Click to expand...

And the evidence of Rudy's presence (DNA left behind, as was left behind everywhere else in the cottage he was in)?


Have you read the excerpt from the Massei Report?


To steal a line from Fiona: Just because something is possible does not make it so.

It's possible that Rudy acted alone - only the evidence doesn't make this a likely scenario.

It's possible that Amanda had nothing to do with the murder - only the evidence doesn't make this a likely scenario.

It was possible that Patrick was involved - only the evidence makes that an unlikely (nay, impossible) scenario.


You're correct. The prosecution does not deny that it is physically possible to climb through the window. The Prosecution did successfully argue that this was not what happened on the night in question.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
Are you aware that the prosecution agreed that entrance was possible through that window?
Click to expand...

Meredith being murdered by space aliens is 'possible', but possible alone doesn't cut it.

The prosecution may agree entry is 'possible', but you're not telling the whole story. What the prosecution believes is that the climb and entry was not possible in the context of the evidence at the scene, that all the evidence proves that that 'didn't' happen and they have a pretty damned strong case and you've not offered a thing to counter it.
 
Dan O. said:
Bruce, Are you aware if anyone has studied the acceleration effects that the shade would have had on the glass fragments as it is propelled open by the striking rock?

I think some people have difficulty reconciling that the glass traveled so far into the room yet the rock landed much closer. If the rock expels it's momentum pushing the shade open, that would produce a sudden inrush of air that would blow the glass much further into the room and prevent glass from flying out. The reaction would also deflect the rock to the side away from the shutter.

Of course, I'm sure Raffaele would have thought about all of this to stage the room. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

And some people have a difficult job comprehending that Filomena moved stuff, including the glass around in the room...in fact, whenever this is mentioned to them they wilfully ignore it.
 
Last edited:
Do you want the honest truth? We talk about all of the other details but the entire case comes down to a kitchen knife and a bra clasp.

If you don't believe that then you are kidding yourself.

Remove those two items from the "Mountain" of evidence and try to convince yourself that the prosecution would even try to move forward with the case.

If the new judge grants additional testing on either one of those items, Amanda and Raffaele will be exonerated.

Fiona, that was me taking a step back and looking at the big picture. That's reality.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
Do you want the honest truth? We talk about all of the other details but the entire case comes down to a kitchen knife and a bra clasp.

If you don't believe that then you are kidding yourself.

Remove those two items from the "Mountain" of evidence and try to convince yourself that the prosecution would even try to move forward with the case.

If the new judge grants additional testing on either one of those items, Amanda and Raffaele will be exonerated.

Fiona, that was me taking a step back and looking at the big picture. That's reality.
Click to expand...

So, where were Amanda and Raffaele on the night of the murder?

Why was Raffaele's DNA on the clasp and not anywhere else in the room/on the door? Of the 400+ places tested for DNA, Raffaele's turned up on a total of two - the bra clasp and a cigarette butt in the kitchen. So, where did the DNA come from? Dust, as Halides claims?
 
Fiona said:
How strong a wind are we talking about here? :confused:
Click to expand...

It will be several times the velocity that the rock had once it had entered the room. The mechanical leverage of pushing on the shutter near the hinge provides the first multiplier. The bellows effect of the large shutter area drawing air through the smaller opening provides another multiplier. The initial velocity of the rock will also be much higher before it hits the shutter than after.

It should be possible to compute the possible trajectories that would get the glass fragments to the rug in front of the bed. That would give an estimate on how much acceleration would have been required.
 
It is the reality as you see it, Bruce Fisher. But I completely disagree. I very much doubt that the forensic evidence was the most important factor in the decision and this is a view I reached many, many pages ago. I cannot but be aware that those who believe AK and RS are innocent of this crime tend to believe as you do: and that it would be very useful for them if the rest of the evidence went away. But it won't. They are very minor parts of what makes this case what it is. For me the reality is that you could dispense with them entirely and the three would still have been convicted.
 
Bruce Fisher" said:
Do you want the honest truth? We talk about all of the other details but the entire case comes down to a kitchen knife and a bra clasp.

If you don't believe that then you are kidding yourself.
Click to expand...

No, it's you people that are deluded if you believe that. It was the mountain of evidence that convicted them, not any one big ticket item. The problem with you people is that you project...you think the knife and clasp are the most important and therefore assume the court believes the same. It's a complex world and in the real world, context is taken into account, that means everything, not this or that in isolation.
 
Dan O. said:
It will be several times the velocity that the rock had once it had entered the room. The mechanical leverage of pushing on the shutter near the hinge provides the first multiplier. The bellows effect of the large shutter area drawing air through the smaller opening provides another multiplier. The initial velocity of the rock will also be much higher before it hits the shutter than after.

It should be possible to compute the possible trajectories that would get the glass fragments to the rug in front of the bed. That would give an estimate on how much acceleration would have been required.
Click to expand...

What are you waiting for then? Go and compute Dr Dan_O. Make sure you tell us your results.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom