Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fulcanelli said:
Why did you crop it in the first place then? What was wrong with 'as is'?
Click to expand...

Another pointless question. Who cares? I cropped it to fit the page the way I wanted it to. It was on the knife page. It wasn't put on the site to show the sink.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
It is reasonable to say that the DNA on the clasp came from other people that have visited the cottage due to contamination.
Click to expand...

Saying it is "reasonable" is totally different than what your website says, that the DNA "tested positive" for others that visited the apartment. If your theory is contamination than the unknown DNA could have come from another case the lab was working on, meaning someone that never visited the apartment.
 
Last edited:
Bruce Fisher said:
You must defend how the clasp was handled if you want to look at the clasp as credible evidence.
Click to expand...
I'm not looking at the clasp as credible evidence, I'm pointing out that you are stating things as facts which are not proven. It isn't doing your credibility any good.
 
Agatha said:
I'm not looking at the clasp as credible evidence, I'm pointing out that you are stating things as facts which are not proven. It isn't doing your credibility any good.
Click to expand...

It is reasonable to say that the contamination came from other people that visited the cottage.

Where do you think the contamination came from?

Do you think the clasp is credible evidence?
 
Fisher said:
I could write books on all of the misinformation on PMF and TJ.
Click to expand...

Just one or two 'supported' examples will do. Let's see here them. That shouldn't be hard to show if it's true. If it's just an assertion by you, just like everything else you've offered so far except for your FBI man, then you'll not be in any danger of breaking your perfectly bad record.
 
Last edited:
Is English your first language? Perhaps I am not making myself sufficiently clear. I'll try again.

Whether it is reasonable or not to say (as a conclusion) that the DNA came from other people in the cottage is not what I am discussing. I am pointing out that you are stating as fact that the DNA came from other people "who visited the cottage", when in actuality you do not know to whom the DNA belonged. If you want your site to have credibility, you need to draw a clear distinction between proven facts on the one hand, and opinions and conclusions on the other.
 
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...

How does a clasp become contaminated by being stored in a cottage? You do understand, that a primary reason why the Italians seal a crime scene for a year is so that they can store the evidence there? You did know that, didn't you?
 
Fulcanelli said:
How does a clasp become contaminated by being stored in a cottage? You do understand, that a primary reason why the Italians seal a crime scene for a year is so that they can store the evidence there? You did know that, didn't you?
Click to expand...

Why didn't they collect it with the bra?
 
Fulcanelli said:
How does a clasp become contaminated by being stored in a cottage? You do understand, that a primary reason why the Italians seal a crime scene for a year is so that they can store the evidence there? You did know that, didn't you?
Click to expand...


When was the cottage sealed?
 
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...

5 or 3? You mean you don't know? I thought you knew everything Bruce? The eye of God and all that?

Alright, I'll enlighten you. 5 signatures in total....Meredith's, Raffaele's and Amanda's, plus two others of two unidentified females which can never be identified because they are partial, trace, and therefore cannot be matched to anyone.

No charge for the education. If you want to learn anything else, just ask...or call my secretary.
 
Agatha said:
Is English your first language? Perhaps I am not making myself sufficiently clear. I'll try again.

Whether it is reasonable or not to say (as a conclusion) that the DNA came from other people in the cottage is not what I am discussing. I am pointing out that you are stating as fact that the DNA came from other people "who visited the cottage", when in actuality you do not know to whom the DNA belonged. If you want your site to have credibility, you need to draw a clear distinction between proven facts on the one hand, and opinions and conclusions on the other.
Click to expand...

As far as I know, this my response was written in English.

It is reasonable to say that the contamination came from other people that visited the cottage.

Where do you think the contamination came from?

Do you think the clasp is credible evidence?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom