Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Bruce Fischer]

Really? Why are these signers so shy of discussing it anywhere else...openly? It's like, they published their letter and then went into hiding. Why can't they publicly discuss it somewhere, like...well, like here? Why the cloak and dagger? If they made themselves available, they could answer many questions.

And as for signers...what, you mean you've spoken to 'both' of them?

Why should they talk to you here? Are the signatures not proof enough that they agree with the petition?

I know the petition bothers you because it is written by experts that disagree with you but sometimes you just have to deal with things in life.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Well I'm sure that Amanda's legal team got this refusal in writing, correct?

What a great question! Let's see this refusal in writing. That should clear everything up. And don't worry about it being in Italian, I can get it translated

 

[Bruce Fischer]

.
TRANSLATION: FOA and The Entourage never correct their websites when factual errors are pointed out.

If that is what your particular version of the truth is all about, go for it. It won't help Amanda much, even if it helps make you feel part of the tribe.

I have already edited the very minor error that I made about the soap.

I asked you for the list of all of the factual errors on my site.

Why don't you make a power point showing me? Hey why not cut out some shapes with construction paper and paste them on a mural. Better yet, why not draw me a picture with crayons.

 

[Matthew Best]

This thread is really deteriorating.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

What a great question! Let's see this refusal in writing. That should clear everything up. And don't worry about it being in Italian, I can get it translated

I think they will just wait for the appeal. The trial is a little more important than pleasing you here.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I have not seen evidence that it was bleached. Do you know of any?

Are you kidding me? Seriously? You're going to present now that the knife wasn't bleached?

After you made the big fuss about how your favorite letter claims the bleach would have destroyed all the DNA on the knife, so there's no way Meredith's DNA arrived via any means other than contamination?


Are you serious?


Disingenuous isn't even the right *********** word for this. You, Chris, are a bald-faced liar.



At this point, I would hope that no one in this thread would give you an ounce of credibility. If it wasn't apparent before, it is dreadfully apparent now that your sole purpose for being here is to twist the facts to fit your pre-conceived notions regarding Amanda.



(BTW: There's the door, over there ----->. Don't let it hit you on your way out)

 

[Bruce Fischer]

"Screwed up" is neither a scientific or legal term. The bra clasp won't be thrown out if the only "evidence" for contamination is a police video.

Again, is there any legal precedence for DNA contamination based only on what is scene in a video?

I am not in a court room. I hope you know what "screwed up" means. Evidence is thrown out of court rooms all the time because investigators "screwed up"

And the answer to your question is yes, absolutely, contamination can be proven using video.

 

[Alt+F4]

What a great question! Let's see this refusal in writing. That should clear everything up. And don't worry about it being in Italian, I can get it translated

Even the most incompetent lawyer would get such an important piece of information in written form, otherwise it's hearsay.

Evidence of this refusal would do much to boost Amanda's claim of innocence based on an unfair prosecution.

 

[Alt+F4]

Evidence is thrown out of court rooms all the time because investigators "screwed up"

Can you give an example where evidence was thrown out of a criminal court based on nothing further than an accusation that someone "screwed up"?

And the answer to your question is yes, absolutely, contamination can be proven using video.

How?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Are you kidding me? Seriously? You're going to present now that the knife wasn't bleached?

After you made the big fuss about how your favorite letter claims the bleach would have destroyed all the DNA on the knife, so there's no way Meredith's DNA arrived via any means other than contamination?


Are you serious?


Disingenuous isn't even the right *********** word for this. You, Chris, are a bald-faced liar.




At this point, I would hope that no one in this thread would give you an ounce of credibility. If it wasn't apparent before, it is dreadfully apparent now that your sole purpose for being here is to twist the facts to fit your pre-conceived notions regarding Amanda.



(BTW: There's the door, over there ----->. Don't let it hit you on your way out)

The argument goes like this,

If you claim that the knife was bleached then you cannot also claim to find Touch DNA on the blade.

That was the claim by Stefanoni. You cannot credibly make this claim.

Stefanoni never showed any proof that the knife was bleached. She said she looked at it and it looked bleached. It was her Professional opinion. I think a simple test for bleach would have been more appropriate.

The knife and the clasp are completely unreliable. The new judge will ask for a review and we will see how that goes.

Your post is very childish. Why don't all of you grow up a little bit. You are really embarrassing yourselves at this point.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Every time you try to explain this, you make it sound even more ridiculous.

Your statement - "the proper place to do so"

That statement would make any credible investigator laugh.

Keep trying to defend leaving a vital piece of evidence left on the floor. It really exposes your extreme bias.

Really, forensics examiners normally perform detailed examinations of bras and the like at crime scenes do they?

Had they done so, you'd be claiming that all that examination outside of a lab environment is a clear path for contamination.

But then, over the last two years, we have become used to how you people impose a double bind on all those you consider a threat.

 

[Kermit]

I have already edited the very minor error that I made about the soap.

But you haven't responded to my posts about you mixing up Mignini as the prosecutor who "took the Monster of Florence case".

Nor have you shown much interest in correcting your "midnight" questioning of Preston, that even Preston's own words contradict.

==============
Bruce, people are starting to complain. Sit back, relax, take some time to correct your website, and you can come back next week.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Really, forensics examiners normally perform detailed examinations of bras and the like at crime scenes do they?

Had they done so, you'd be claiming that all that examination outside of a lab environment is a clear path for contamination.

But then, over the last two years, we have become used to how you people impose a double bind on all those you consider a threat.

Your argument with regard to the clasp has been completely discredited. Any legitimate investigator would have looked at that bra at the scene and realized part of it was missing. They would have insisted that it be found immediately.

I am done discussing this with you. You are wrong, you know you are wrong.

You even made a comment on PMF when you posted one of Kermits kindergarten projects that the clasp should have been collected at the same time as the bra. Oh yeah, your not really Michael, I forgot.

You and Peggy have tried for two years to destroy two innocent lives. One day you will realize what you have done.

 

[shuttlt]

you are here on the board and you stated

"I'm not interested in who the killer is"

Why am I debating with you over all of these details? Like I said, you would make a horrible judge. The trial would never end.

As I've said before, if I was responsible for making this kind of decision I would, and have, behave differently.

If you don't understand why it was important to properly collect a vital piece of evidence then I cannot help you.

I agree that it was an error not to collect the bra clasp on day one. Why it happened, one would need the audio to know. Doubtless errors are revealed in any complicated case involving lots of evidence, expensive defence lawyers and the media. Whether there are more or less in this case I have no idea.

The bra was cut off the victim in a extremely violent attack. The bra was vital evidence. The clasp is part of the bra. It should have been collected and it wasn't.

Sure. But it wasn't lost, it was collected subsequently. The only argument that matters is that somehow the 47 days made a significant difference to the odds of contamination by Raffaele's DNA.

Ask any investigator if this was a mistake. If they are credible, they will say yes.

Clearly it would have been better to have collected all the evidence that was important on day 1. It was therefore a mistake. It would also have been better to have searched Raffaele's apartment at that point as well, and picked up Guede. It was still an error, but not such an obvious one at the time as it is now.

It's funny, On one of Kermit's childish powerpoint presentations on PMF, either Michael or himself admits that the clasp should have been collected. But they must have forgotten that they said that.

I agree that it would have been better if it had been and that it was an error that it wasn't. In and off itself that isn't a problem though.

Why does the clasp have all of that extra DNA on it that was nowhere to be found on the bra itself?

I've said it before and I'll say it again. This is an interesting question. I can't answer it.

Maybe that wouldn't be a mystery if they were both collected properly.

Could be. I think the difference in the DNA on the clasp and the bra is your best argument for contamination. The other DNA of course is at lower levels, so it's far from clear cut.

 

[Fulcanelli]

That is outstanding. Here the guy would be SOL unless someone with pockets could get nailed in a civil suit. Good luck with that.

It is good. I like how the Italian system puts all victims on an equal level within the process, rather then shuts them out of it like the common law system does. Of course, there's a downside, in that it makes the system more complex and slower.

But this is true to most things. Take aircraft or car design...the faster you make a craft, you pay a higher cost in economy. The more economical you make a craft, the lower the performance...you also have to balance production costs which takes the edge off of either optimisations. It works the same way in social, political and legal systems.

 

[Fulcanelli]

It's a hell of a lot more than dust on those gloves. Then they threw the gloves on the floor of the already trashed the cottage and left.

Then they came back and used luminol on the trashed contaminated cottage.

Throw bloody gloves on the floor, then come back six weeks later and use the luminol. How many other places in the cottage did they throw gloves? The entire crime scene was mishandled. It was very poorly investigated.

Did the gloves make the footprints?

 

[Alt+F4]

You and Peggy have tried for two years to destroy two innocent lives. One day you will realize what you have done.

How is what people are saying on the Internet, in English, destroying the lives of Amanda and Raffaele?

 

[lane99]

No, no one did point that out. Can you point me in the right direction where I could find more information about this?


I'll gladly reconsider once I have studied this in a little more detail. And if what you say holds up.

The one example that springs most immediately to mind is the murder of the Petit family in the US. One of the most henious and sickening crimes in memory. And the two men that did it were small time losers (like Rudy Guede) and had no particular history of violence. In fact, they had been specifically designated as "non-violent" offenders. That's how, I believe, they were able to get out of prison in the first place to become available to commit the atrocities against the Petits.

Apart from that, I would venture to say that if you looked at the background of perpetrators of home invasion rapes and murders, if not 100%, a significant majority will have of previously been involved in B&E burglaries.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Can you give an example where evidence was thrown out of a criminal court based on nothing further than an accusation that someone "screwed up"?



How?

Of course, all evidence is always accepted 100% of the time. Courts never throw out anything.

I am talking on JREF. the phrase "screw up" is fine for use here. Of course in court you would use professional language to describe the "screw up"

Why is so much time wasted on this board explaining simple logic. Do you really not know what I mean when I say "screwed up"


Are we on the same planet?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

The argument goes like this,

If you claim that the knife was bleached then you cannot also claim to find Touch DNA on the blade.

That was the claim by Stefanoni. You cannot credibly make this claim.

Stefanoni never showed any proof that the knife was bleached. She said she looked at it and it looked bleached. It was her Professional opinion. I think a simple test for bleach would have been more appropriate.

The knife and the clasp are completely unreliable. The new judge will ask for a review and we will see how that goes.

Your post is very childish. Why don't all of you grow up a little bit. You are really embarrassing yourselves at this point.

So then if bleaching a surface removes any trace of DNA, how did the contamination happen in a lab that bleaches all surfaces regularly?


Doh. Misstepped again there, Bruce.