Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Alt+F4 said:
Just so I can be clear, are you saying that the bra clasp tested positive for the DNA of "other people that visited the apartment"?

Who are they? I'm not aware any DNA profiles were taken from the other two roomates, Meredith's British friends or her boyfriend. Who else would have visited the apartment in the less than two months that both girls lived there?



Could be, but Rafaelle didn't have dish washing detergent in his apartment, he had laundry detergent.
Click to expand...

Your question about the clasp is an excellent one. I would like to know also. The clasp is contaminated. It was stored in a cottage instead of an evidence bag.

I was simply letting you know that your reasoning for the dish soap may be incorrect.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
Your question about the clasp is an excellent one. I would like to know also. The clasp is contaminated. It was stored in a cottage instead of an evidence bag.

I was simply letting you know that your reasoning for the dish soap may be incorrect.
Click to expand...

Contaminated by whose DNA?
 
Bruce Fisher said:
Your question about the clasp is an excellent one. I would like to know also. The clasp is contaminated. It was stored in a cottage instead of an evidence bag.

I was simply letting you know that your reasoning for the dish soap may be incorrect.
Click to expand...

Why were no other DNA profiles taken?
 
So you can't state as fact that the DNA on the bra clasp was from "other people who visited the apartment", as you don't know to whom the DNA belonged, is that correct?
 
Bruce Fisher said:
I would like to know that myself. Once again, it proves contamination. The clasp was not properly handled. I have an excellent article in regard to this that will be posted on my site tomorrow.
Click to expand...

Contaminated by whose DNA?

In other words:

Which of the 5 signatures are the result of contamination?
 
Agatha said:
So you can't state as fact that the DNA on the bra clasp was from "other people who visited the apartment", as you don't know to whom the DNA belonged, is that correct?
Click to expand...

No one knows who it belonged to. Proper testing wasn't done. The clasp was contaminated from the floor in the cottage. It is reasonable to say that the contamination came from other people that had also been in the cottage.

In reality, it doesn't matter. It proves contamination. Are those other mystery people also guilty of murder?

Proper testing was not done. They didn't even profile the other ladies in the cottage.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
Your question about the clasp is an excellent one. I would like to know also. The clasp is contaminated. It was stored in a cottage instead of an evidence bag.
Click to expand...


Can you prove that the claps was stored at the cottage all that time?
 
Bruce Fisher said:
No one knows who it belonged to. Proper testing wasn't done. The clasp was contaminated from the floor in the cottage. It is reasonable to say that the contamination came from other people that had also been in the cottage.

In reality, it doesn't matter. It proves contamination. Are those other mystery people also guilty of murder?

Proper testing was not done. They didn't even profile the other ladies in the cottage.
Click to expand...

Which of the 5 signatures were due to contamination?
 
Bruce Fisher said:
No one knows who it belonged to. Proper testing wasn't done. The clasp was contaminated from the floor in the cottage. It is reasonable to say that the contamination came from other people that had also been in the cottage.

In reality, it doesn't matter. It proves contamination. Are those other mystery people also guilty of murder?

Proper testing was not done. They didn't even profile the other ladies in the cottage.
Click to expand...

There is also disagreement on whether it was 5 additional people or 3. Either way, it was contaminated.

You cannot defend the way the clasp was handled. It is impossible to defend. Everyone knows it was mishandled.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
Your question about the clasp is an excellent one. I would like to know also. The clasp is contaminated. It was stored in a cottage instead of an evidence bag.
Click to expand...

How is it that "you would like to know also" when you have on your website that the clasp tested positivefor the DNA of "others that visited the apartment".

Either the bra clasp tested positive for the DNA of others that visited the apartment (which means they have been identified by name) or the DNA is unknown. Which is it?

I was simply letting you know that your reasoning for the dish soap may be incorrect.
Click to expand...

Soap dish? What are you talking about? Your website says Dixan is a dishwashing detergent, it's not, it's a laundry detergent.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
There is also disagreement on whether it was 5 additional people or 3. Either way, it was contaminated.

You cannot defend the way the clasp was handled. It is impossible to defend. Everyone knows it was mishandled.
Click to expand...

Which of the 5 signatures are due to contamination?
 
Alt+F4 said:
How is it that "you would like to know also" when you have on your website that the clasp tested positivefor the DNA of "others that visited the apartment".

Either the bra clasp tested positive for the DNA of others that visited the apartment (which means they have been identified by name) or the DNA is unknown. Which is it?



Soap dish? What are you talking about? Your website says Dixan is a dishwashing detergent, it's not, it's a laundry detergent.
Click to expand...

I have already stated that I may be wrong on the soap.

It does not mean they have been identified by name. It means that is is reasonable to say that contamination came from others that had visited the cottage. The contamination came from the floor, contaminated gloves and shoe covers.

You are keying in on a pointless argument. The truth is, there is DNA from other people on that clasp.

Who are they?

How did it get there?
 
Bruce Fisher said:
They didn't even profile the other ladies in the cottage.
Click to expand...

Then again, why does your website state that "the bra clasp tested positive for the DNA of Raffaele and many other people that visited the apartment"?

Why not just state the truth? No one else who visited the apartment during that two month period had a DNA profile taken by the police.
 
Last edited:
Bruce Fisher said:
I have already stated that I may be wrong on the soap.

It does not mean they have been identified by name. It means that is is reasonable to say that contamination came from others that had visited the cottage. The contamination came from the floor, contaminated gloves and shoe covers.

You are keying in on a pointless argument. The truth is, there is DNA from other people on that clasp.

Who are they?

How did it get there?
Click to expand...


Quit ignoring my question, Bruce.


Which of the 5 signatures are the result of contamination?
 
It isn't "defending the way the clasp was handled" to point out that you state something as fact on your site which is not evidenced. You don't know who the DNA on the clasp comes from (other than Meredith and Raffaelle) so you cannot state with certainty that the DNA came from people who had visited the cottage.
 
Agatha said:
It isn't "defending the way the clasp was handled" to point out that you state something as fact on your site which is not evidenced. You don't know who the DNA on the clasp comes from (other than Meredith and Raffaelle) so you cannot state with certainty that the DNA came from people who had visited the cottage.
Click to expand...

You are all being completely ridiculous. Your argument is pointless.

How did the DNA from unidentified people get on the clasp? That is the job of the prosecution to answer. They did not do that.

No proper investigation was done.

I have repeated this a couple of times now. It is reasonable to say that the DNA on the clasp came from other people that have visited the cottage due to contamination.
 
Agatha said:
It isn't "defending the way the clasp was handled" to point out that you state something as fact on your site which is not evidenced. You don't know who the DNA on the clasp comes from (other than Meredith and Raffaelle) so you cannot state with certainty that the DNA came from people who had visited the cottage.
Click to expand...

You must defend how the clasp was handled if you want to look at the clasp as credible evidence.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
Not at all. Would you like me to include the entire photo? I will be happy to make that edit. You can see the entire photo on foa. I credit the photo to that site.

There is nothing at all to hide. The pipe is clearly not in working order.
Click to expand...

Why did you crop it in the first place then? What was wrong with 'as is'?
 
RoseMontague said:
It is the "trap" underneath the sink that "came off" or came "loose" that caused that major water spill. If I recall that is the drain part where the water spilled is limited to the amount of water in the sink, or if the water is running you simply turn off the faucet at the sink to stop it.

Bruce, you don't consider that photo "posed" in any way?
Click to expand...

The photo of under the sink was after the police examination. That wasn't how it was originally.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom