Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bruce Fisher said:
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.
Click to expand...

Meredith shared a flat with three other girls including laundry facilities, that's how. She didn't live in the twighlight zone.
 
Fulcanelli said:
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.
Click to expand...

I know that you are angry because your cult power is slipping away but you should calm yourself.

I have all of this information but it is disputed by different experts.

The fact that the investigators never did DNA profiling for the other people that lived in the cottage shows their incompetence.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
Not good enough. The clasp wasn't handled properly. You and I both know it. I show sufficient proof of this.

Next.
Click to expand...

Not good enough...under 'whose' rules? They seal a crime scene so evidence can stay there as long as it needs to until it's required. They come back and get more for testing as required later. What's wrong with that concept?
 
Dan O. said:
When was the cottage sealed?
Click to expand...

The cottage was broken into at least twice in the course of that year. No it wasn't sealed.

That is a different matter though.

The clasp was not handled properly. It cannot be defended. The clasp should have been collected with the bra.
 
Fulcanelli said:
Not good enough...under 'whose' rules? They seal a crime scene so evidence can stay there as long as it needs to until it's required. They come back and get more for testing as required later. What's wrong with that concept?
Click to expand...

The cottage was not sealed. That's not the point. They should have collected the clasp with the bra.

You know this. Stop trying to defend the mistake. It happened. You know it happened.

This cannot be defended. You are going to drive yourself insane trying. The investigators screwed up.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
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.
Click to expand...
Reasonable conclusion=/= fact. Assertion =/=evidence

Where do you think the contamination came from?

Do you think the clasp is credible evidence?
Click to expand...
No idea, I'm not in the business of speculation. I am trying (without much success, it seems) to show you that it is not correct for you to state that the DNA (other than Meredith's, Amanda's and Raffaelle's) was positively from "other people who visited the cottage" since you don't know to whom it belonged. It may be that the DNA was from visitors to the cottage, or it may not be. You don't know.
 
Fisher said:
The fact that the investigators never did DNA profiling for the other people that lived in the cottage shows their incompetence.
Click to expand...

And your evidence to back up that assertion 'is'?
 
Agatha said:
Reasonable conclusion=/= fact. Assertion =/=evidence

No idea, I'm not in the business of speculation. I am trying (without much success, it seems) to show you that it is not correct for you to state that the DNA (other than Meredith's, Amanda's and Raffaelle's) was positively from "other people who visited the cottage" since you don't know to whom it belonged. It may be that the DNA was from visitors to the cottage, or it may not be. You don't know.
Click to expand...

Are those mystery people guilty of murder?

This is the only evidence that they have putting Raffaele at the crime scene.

Are the mystery people guilty also?
 
Bruce Fisher said:
Are those mystery people guilty of murder?

This is the only evidence that they have putting Raffaele at the crime scene.

Are the mystery people guilty also?
Click to expand...
That would be back in the realm of conclusions, rather than evidence. Is this point really so hard for you to distinguish?
 
Agatha said:
Reasonable conclusion=/= fact. Assertion =/=evidence

No idea, I'm not in the business of speculation. I am trying (without much success, it seems) to show you that it is not correct for you to state that the DNA (other than Meredith's, Amanda's and Raffaelle's) was positively from "other people who visited the cottage" since you don't know to whom it belonged. It may be that the DNA was from visitors to the cottage, or it may not be. You don't know.
Click to expand...

Do you think the clasp is credible evidence?
 
Agatha said:
That would be back in the realm of conclusions, rather than evidence. Is this point really so hard for you to distinguish?
Click to expand...

If the clasp makes Raffaele guilty of murder then it makes the mystery people guilty also.

There is nothing else putting Raffaele at the scene of the crime. Nothing.
 
I think you've demonstrated my point perfectly. First washing powder that you merrily claim to be dishwasher powder, and then claiming to know the movements of all the people whose DNA is on the bra clasp. You are asserting things without evidencing them.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
cite

First time I ever wrote that. I want to feel like I belong.
Click to expand...

Look Fisher, I know you're newbie to this case and everything, but just because you weren't around during the last TWO YEARS of the case and missed the whole flurry of news articles about the police totally dismantling Raffaele's pipes and taking them away for inspection (which is part of the well known history of this case) don't be expecting others to hold your hand. Learn the history of the case, or, you can continue making a fool of yourself by showing everyone just how green you are every time you get close to a keyboard. Just a word from the wise.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
If the clasp makes Raffaele guilty of murder then it makes the mystery people guilty also.
Click to expand...

At least you are admitting they are "mystery people" which means what you wrote on your website that the DNA "tested positive" for specific persons is a lie.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
The cottage was broken into at least twice in the course of that year. No it wasn't sealed.

That is a different matter though.

The clasp was not handled properly. It cannot be defended. The clasp should have been collected with the bra.
Click to expand...

Sealed does not mean a 'force field' (are you really from this planet?). Sealed means it was locked. It had police seals. And if anyone tried to break in, it would be detected right afterwards, as it was. Moreover, none of these break-ins happened until 'after' all relevant evidence had been retrieved from the scene.

The fact is, when the cottage was broken into a) The police detected it immediately and

b) They broke in via the route a 'real' burglar' would break into...the kitchen window.
 
Last edited:
Bruce Fisher said:
Your question is pointless. It simply doesn't matter. The DNA testing proves contamination.

You must defend the handling of the clasp to consider the clasp to be credible evidence.
Click to expand...

Well, actually, my question does matter. Here's why:

1) If you claim Raffaele's DNA arrived on the clasp via contamination (a la Halides), you have a few problems you need to deal with:

A) Where did the contamination originate from? Raffaele's DNA was found solely on a cigarette butt in the kitchen - a piece of evidence that was notably not left at the cottage while the clasp was. No other swab from the cottage showed Raffaele's DNA. So where did his DNA come from?

B) Raffaele's DNA was found in a (relatively) much higher concentration than Amanda's and the 2 unknown signatures. 2nd in concentration only to Meredith, who's bra it was (as we well know). This being the case, and (A) being the case, and keeping in mind that Amanda's DNA was (rightfully, as she lived there) found all over the cottage, how can one logically conclude that Raffaele's DNA arrived via the same method of contamination as Amanda's and the other 2 female unknowns?




Do I think the clasp is credible? Yes. And the reason is that contamination alone cannot explain the concentration of Raffaele's DNA on the clasp, notably that Raffaele's DNA was found in a higher concentration than any of Meredith's roommates - who's DNA we would expect to see signatures of due to shared laundry facilities/living quarters.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom