Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[tsig]

Remove the kitchen knife and the bra clasp and tell me that you believe Amanda and Raffaele would have gone to trial for this crime.

Ok I'm telling you.

 

[shuttlt]

I never quite understood it either. Compared to someone clambering over the sill?

Compared to anything. Seriously, I would be surprised if the inrush of air had any appreciable impact on the scattering of the glass. Once the window has opened even a little you will start to get the air sucked from inside the room to fill the void as well as from the outside. Even with an intact window I don't think you would get very much of a gust. In this case the window is broken and the shutters are not airtight.

 

[Fiona]

All of the people that you have mentioned would state that the evidence is strong so my statement is irrelevant.

I do not know what you mean. Did you include the judges in your figures or not? How did you arrive at your conclusion that very few people (30 I think yoiu said) believe that AK and RS would not have gone to trial without the forensic evidence? Was there a study? Can you link it please?

Amanda and Raffaele would have never been charged with murder without the clasp and the knife.

I do not agree. I am at a loss as to why you would say this, in fact. What makes you believe that those are the crucial elements in this case? I gather that you think there is nothing else, but that is demonstrably untrue, as is shown by your strenuous attempts to discredit many other aspects. If nothing mattered except the bra clasp and the knife why would you bother?

List the mountain of evidence.

I did list it a very long time ago and you are aware of this. You dismissed much of it but sadly you did not produce the evidence which proved your stance, and so our differences remain. You know this.

I am not really prepared to go back through this thread and amend that list on the basis of what we have learned since I made it. The thread is there for all to read. If I did do that then all that would happen is that we would start the whole merry go round again. I honestly can't be bothered. It is more than clear that we cannot agree on the smallest point and that we just go over the same ground again and again. No matter what is said we face bare assertion: which is fair enough: but when it is the same unreconstructed bare assertion which has already been challenged; and when that challenge has neither been met nor conceded; and when that assertion is merely abandoned till sufficient time has gone by: then raised from the dead: then there is no hope of progress. At some point doing any further work is a complete waste of time.

You will find that it amounts to nothing more than to young people making confusing statements.

No, I won't. And you know that perfectlywell.

That's not enough to put someone in prison for 30 years.

Correct: you know that and I know that and the Italian judiciary know that. It is not what happened. And the knife and the clasp are not the main factors which led to the conviction: though they are part of it. If it turns out that the Massei report focusses on that to the exclusion of all else I will certainly concede that your analysis is correct concerning the importance of those elements. I will be surprised if that happens, however

Make a list removing the clasp and the knife. You will keep coming back to their statements, not physical evidence. There is no motive, no proof of them being there, no evidence whatsoever in the murder room. There is no mountain of evidence.

No, I won't. But we have been over all this ad nauseam. You are entitled to your opinion. It is possible you have based it on more information than I have: but you have not produced much which makes a difference so far. I accept you wish to protect your "sources". You need to accept that what you have produced so far is hardly conclusive.

 

[stilicho]

You will find that it amounts to nothing more than to young people making confusing statements.

Why is it the FOA crowd diminishes the importance of their own words so much? If this thread has accomplished one task for the FOA cult, it's been to create the impression that their statements aren't as important as other evidence.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

low threshold

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?

BobTheDonkey,

I did not claim that dust is the most likely source. I happen to think that the amply documented over-handling of the clasp is a more likely source of DNA for all of the contributors of DNA to the clasp, other than Meredith. I think that Kermit and others were misinterpreting the paper that I cited, and for the same reason that they misunderstood the paper on DNA and fingerprints I cited. BTW, I found it helpful to ask the senior author of the DNA dust paper some questions, and I recommend this approach in other circumstances.

If all four hundred samples were analyzed with the same low threshold as the knife (which is less than 15 RFUs), it’s a dollars-to-donuts bet that one will see other DNA profiles. In addition, you continue to ignore that contamination is often a sporadic event. Sorry that I cannot stay, but work beckons.

Halides1

 

[Fulcanelli]

I did not claim that dust is the most likely source.

Then WHY did you go on and on about dust for page after page? Was it just to waste everybody's time?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Then WHY did you go on and on about dust for page after page? Was it just to waste everybody's time?

I am really worried about Fulcanelli. He used to at least try and debate. Now he just tries to insult everyone. I think someone might want to check on him.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

I do not know what you mean. Did you include the judges in your figures or not? How did you arrive at your conclusion that very few people (30 I think yoiu said) believe that AK and RS would not have gone to trial without the forensic evidence? Was there a study? Can you link it please?



I do not agree. I am at a loss as to why you would say this, in fact. What makes you believe that those are the crucial elements in this case? I gather that you think there is nothing else, but that is demonstrably untrue, as is shown by your strenuous attempts to discredit many other aspects. If nothing mattered except the bra clasp and the knife why would you bother?



I did list it a very long time ago and you are aware of this. You dismissed much of it but sadly you did not produce the evidence which proved your stance, and so our differences remain. You know this.

I am not really prepared to go back through this thread and amend that list on the basis of what we have learned since I made it. The thread is there for all to read. If I did do that then all that would happen is that we would start the whole merry go round again. I honestly can't be bothered. It is more than clear that we cannot agree on the smallest point and that we just go over the same ground again and again. No matter what is said we face bare assertion: which is fair enough: but when it is the same unreconstructed bare assertion which has already been challenged; and when that challenge has neither been met nor conceded; and when that assertion is merely abandoned till sufficient time has gone by: then raised from the dead: then there is no hope of progress. At some point doing any further work is a complete waste of time.



No, I won't. And you know that perfectlywell.



Correct: you know that and I know that and the Italian judiciary know that. It is not what happened. And the knife and the clasp are not the main factors which led to the conviction: though they are part of it. If it turns out that the Massei report focusses on that to the exclusion of all else I will certainly concede that your analysis is correct concerning the importance of those elements. I will be surprised if that happens, however



No, I won't. But we have been over all this ad nauseam. You are entitled to your opinion. It is possible you have based it on more information than I have: but you have not produced much which makes a difference so far. I accept you wish to protect your "sources". You need to accept that what you have produced so far is hardly conclusive.

There is that "sources" comment again. It only applied to the photos, nothing else. Can we move on now?

 

[shuttlt]

If all four hundred samples were analyzed with the same low threshold as the knife (which is less than 15 RFUs), it’s a dollars-to-donuts bet that one will see other DNA profiles.

Clean, individual, isolated profiles, or a chaotic jumble?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

BobTheDonkey,

I did not claim that dust is the most likely source. I happen to think that the amply documented over-handling of the clasp is a more likely source of DNA for all of the contributors of DNA to the clasp, other than Meredith. I think that Kermit and others were misinterpreting the paper that I cited, and for the same reason that they misunderstood the paper on DNA and fingerprints I cited. BTW, I found it helpful to ask the senior author of the DNA dust paper some questions, and I recommend this approach in other circumstances.

If all four hundred samples were analyzed with the same low threshold as the knife (which is less than 15 RFUs), it’s a dollars-to-donuts bet that one will see other DNA profiles. In addition, you continue to ignore that contamination is often a sporadic event. Sorry that I cannot stay, but work beckons.

Halides1

interesting. So where did Raffaele's DNA come from? If there was so much handling, and it's the dirt/dust on the ground - then you most certainly have argued that it came from the dust/dirt.

If you want to claim the inspectors/officers handling of the clasp is what deposited the DNA, fine. Where did they bring that DNA from? The cigarette butt was removed weeks before during the initial collection, so what other source of Raffaele's DNA was present in the cottage? And again, we're back to his fingerprints/dust on the door.


Where did Raffaele's DNA come from to be deposited on the bra clasp via the handling?

 

[colonelhall]

The Knife and the bra clasp

If I had been on the jury, I would have been open to persuasion regarding the knife. The only reason for the knife being involved that I could see is if they had gone along to scare Meredith as some kind of prank. The bra clasp, I find convincing. The fact that it remained in the room for so long, doesn't bother me. There have been loads of cases of DNA evidence coming up years after the event.

These two items are way down on the list, as far as I am concerned. The discrepancies between the various statements and the timeline of events, are what convinces me of their guilt. I don't know if I have been counted as one of the thirty. However, I would have thought that most sane individuals would see it this way.

 

[Dan O.]

By the way.... this whole wind from the window thing. Are we saying that, if I have some glass on the window sill and I fling the window open, the inrush of air will fling the glass in to the room? Surely any impact of this will be inconsequential.

That post shows you have a serious case of temporal incognizance. You see a picture of glass on the sill and assume that the glass was always there and any forces acting on the glass would necessarily have acted while the glass was on the sill.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

That post shows you have a serious case of temporal incognizance. You see a picture of glass on the sill and assume that the glass was always there and any forces acting on the glass would necessarily have acted while the glass was on the sill.

Well, I suppose we could be talking tornado/hurricane force winds blowing the glass around. Other than that, glass is pretty resilient to winds. It's not unusual to see broken glass hanging around an intersection for weeks after an automobile accident - and those are pretty small shards. Different kinds of glass perhaps, but the principle is the same.

 

[Fiona]

I am really worried about Fulcanelli. He used to at least try and debate. Now he just tries to insult everyone. I think someone might want to check on him.

I see no insult in the post you are responding to. I see a question, and I would like to know the answer to it, actually

 

[Fiona]

There is that "sources" comment again. It only applied to the photos, nothing else. Can we move on now?

No, not really. Others have told you why this is important and it is hardly worth going over again: it is not really a big part of my post, but the fact that you are protecting a source may or may not be important. I mentioned it because I am aware you may have more information than I have: but if you have you have not presented anything terribly persuasive so far and so it is useless in persuading me to your point of view

 

[Debunker]

Still here debating on this issue??
Can not believe it!!

Added: 202 pages! Wow!

 

[nitram]

Remove the clasp and the knife and tell me what evidence would have convicted them. This is very interesting that you actually believe this. They were going to have to release Raffaele and then just like magic they found the clasp. It's all they have.

The knife is a joke. I am amazed that people actually believe the knife story.
Are you aware that Raffaele continued to use the knife in the apartment after the murder? They had days to get rid of the knife but they decided to keep it and continue to use it in Raffaele's kitchen. Of course they felt the need to dispose of the other knife.

Knife and bra clasp. That's it. We can talk about pizza and brick walls and glass and Kermit's need to bring up Amanda's vibrator during a shoe print discussion but the fact remains, it's all about the clasp and the knife.

I know they didn't forget the clasp the first time. They just decided to store it in the cottage instead of an evidence bag.

If Raffaele continued to use the kitchen knife after the evening of the murder, then how come none of his DNA was found on it? I mean, it was his knife, and from his kitchen, whether it was the actual murder weapon or not (and I believe that it made the larger wound in Meredith, the one that almost went through her jaw and into her mouth), it still did not have any of his DNA on it, if I'm not mistaken.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

If Raffaele continued to use the kitchen knife after the evening of the murder, then how come none of his DNA was found on it? I mean, it was hos knife, and from his kitchen, whether it was the actual murder weapon or not (and I believe that it made the larger wound in Meredith, the one that almost went through her jaw and into her mouth), it still did not have any of his DNA on it, if I'm not mistaken.

Good point!

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Good point!

Dishwasher?

 

[lector]

That's big of you. Normally when people fill out forms for an ID they write in their height and weight. They are not measured. Presumably, Rudy knew his height.

Well, we've moved on from this, but I don't think one can assume that Rudy knew his height. Anecdotally, though, I think that the natural tendency is to believe that you're taller than you actually are, so this small argument would not affect Rudy's ability to reach the latch, rather the reverse.

I mention this because I spent several years thinking I was 2 inches taller than I actually am, & that mistaken height wound up on all sorts of documents, including my driver's license. I was shocked when I went into a doctor's office & was measured accurately.