Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fulcanelli said:
Of course it isn't...when you post your list somewhere where he can't respond.
Click to expand...

It was actually on facebook. I simply cut and pasted it to the site.

He did respond with his same old crap. I know he is in the UK. Are you neighbors?

You should get some rest.
 
halides1 said:
I do not know whether the prosecution was asked for them or whether the reference files even exist. I do know that the defense asked for things like machine logs and fsa files. I also know that the prosecution initially claimed that some of this material did not exist and that the defense later found out that Maresca had some of this supposedly nonexistent information. Therefore, I know that the defense's asking for such information is unlikely to provide either the sought-after idata or even a truthful reply. Next question.
Click to expand...


So you are accusing the prosecutors of deliberate, willful malfeasance, intentionally withholding potentially exculpatory evidence in spite of a direct court order to surrender it.

That's pretty potent stuff. Will we see any of it in the appeal?

Next question. Can you substantiate those accusations with anything more than insinuation, innuendo, and third-hand hearsay?
 
First post and first question – I’m curious how the big blood spot on the bath mat got there, I know nobody knows for sure (rather they are not telling us) but nothing I have heard makes sense so far.
Whoever turned the light on and touched the faucet, obviously had blood on their hands and washed it off, did they wipe their hands on the mat first? I doubt it.
I’ve also heard the one where their shoe was full of blood and they dumped it there, again unlikely.
One likely scenario is while Amanda was washing the blood off her hands, she took her partially blood soaked pants off and blood from them transferred onto the mat – she cleaned up and put some new pants on and disposed of the bloody ones.
Any other ideas?
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
First post and first question – I’m curious how the big blood spot on the bath mat got there, I know nobody knows for sure (rather they are not telling us) but nothing I have heard makes sense so far.
Whoever turned the light on and touched the faucet, obviously had blood on their hands and washed it off, did they wipe their hands on the mat first? I doubt it.
I’ve also heard the one where their shoe was full of blood and they dumped it there, again unlikely.
One likely scenario is while Amanda was washing the blood off her hands, she took her partially blood soaked pants off and blood from them transferred onto the mat – she cleaned up and put some new pants on and disposed of the bloody ones.
Any other ideas?
Click to expand...

If Amanda or Raffaele had blood soaked clothing or shoes, what happened to these items?

We know that Rudy disposed of the clothing and shoes he was wearing on the night of the murder.
 
Last edited:
Prometheus said:
By my count, 28 different members have posted in this thread today.
Click to expand...

There are only a few people that are active on this thread. It's no big deal. It's just the simple truth. The board has become a shouting match back and forth. I have to admit that I get into the back and forth too much. I have simply seen too much from the PMF crowd to show them any respect.
 
Last edited:
quadraginta said:
So you are accusing the prosecutors of deliberate, willful malfeasance, intentionally withholding potentially exculpatory evidence in spite of a direct court order to surrender it.

That's pretty potent stuff. Will we see any of it in the appeal?

Next question. Can you substantiate those accusations with anything more than insinuation, innuendo, and third-hand hearsay?
Click to expand...

You will see this during the appeal. It should be interesting.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
There are only a few people that are active on this thread. It's no big deal. It's just the simple truth....
Click to expand...

That depends on what you mean by "active". Of the 28 29 members who have posted today, 20 of them have more than 50 posts in the thread. OTOH, I have only 8 posts here, but I've read the entire thread, and I check back on it several times per day.
 
Prometheus said:
By my count, 28 different members have posted in this thread today.
Click to expand...

But doesn't 'only ten' sound so much more dramatic.

And that typifies the problem with the Amanda supporters... big on drama, short on facts.
 
Kestrel said:
If Amanda or Raffaele had blood soaked clothing or shoes, what happened to these items?

We know that Rudy disposed of the clothing and shoes he was wearing on the night of the murder.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure they would dispose of them, plastic bag and distant garbage can, they had all night and hald the next day - I'm more interested in how the blood got onto the mat to begin with, other than that, there really isn't a lot of blood in the bathroom.
 
Amazer said:
But doesn't 'only ten' sound so much more dramatic.

And that typifies the problem with the Amanda supporters... big on drama, short on facts.
Click to expand...

Look at the conversation today. How many people were really active in the conversation? Can you honestly say more than 10?

You really need to look past PMF for your facts. They sold you a bag of lies.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
First post and first question – I’m curious how the big blood spot on the bath mat got there, I know nobody knows for sure (rather they are not telling us) but nothing I have heard makes sense so far.
Whoever turned the light on and touched the faucet, obviously had blood on their hands and washed it off, did they wipe their hands on the mat first? I doubt it.
I’ve also heard the one where their shoe was full of blood and they dumped it there, again unlikely.
One likely scenario is while Amanda was washing the blood off her hands, she took her partially blood soaked pants off and blood from them transferred onto the mat – she cleaned up and put some new pants on and disposed of the bloody ones.
Any other ideas?
Click to expand...

Welcome to JREF.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
Look at the conversation today. How many people were really active in the conversation? Can you honestly say more than 10?

You really need to look past PMF for your facts. They sold you a bag of lies.
Click to expand...

You would be mistaken if you were under the impression that I got my facts from PMF. I've visited the site thrice, really didn't like the layout, found it a little confusing.

I've actually visited your site more frequently. Mostly to study the pictures of the staged break-in.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
Look at the conversation today. How many people were really active in the conversation? Can you honestly say more than 10?

You really need to look past PMF for your facts. They sold you a bag of lies.
Click to expand...

I really wish you'd get over this PMF obsession. You're here and if you have something to say, say it here.
 
halides1 said:
From the technical bulletin on forensic DNA analysis, “Wash all surfaces and rinse pipette barrels with a dilute bleach solution (2% to 3%). Be sure to rinse any equipment that comes into contact with reagents well, since residual bleach can cause allele or locus dropout.”

www.promega.com/profiles/802/ProfilesinDNA_802_11.pdf

With respect to the DNA profile culled from the knife, Dr. Elizabeth Johnson said (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/AmandaKno...cutorswitched-motives/story?id=9215634&page=3), “The key part of this is there was no blood detected by chemical test methods.” The open letter, coauthored by Drs. Johnson and Hampikian states, “
it is unlikely that all chemically detectable traces of blood could be removed while retaining sufficient cells to produce a DNA profile consistent with the victim.”

My biochemical “intuition” indicates that bleach is oxidizing the deoxyribosyl group of DNA. This creates a good leaving group, which facilitates the nucleophilic attack of water on the phosphodiester bond. Once the phosphodiester backbone is nicked in even one place on the strand, DNA polymerase cannot restart the replication process (remember that DNA polymerases require a primer, unlike RNA polymerases). DNA polymerase is a key component of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technique.
Click to expand...

halides1 said:
"if someone had a knife covered in blood and they tried to
clean it very well, they would remove their ability to detect the DNA before they removed the ability to detect the chemical
traces of blood." The segment can be viewed at http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/AmandaKnox/amanda-knox-lawyer-prosecutorswitched-
motives/story?id=9215634.
Click to expand...

halides1 said:
Let’s not forget the reference I gave some time ago: A. M. Prince, L. Andrus PCR: How to kill unwanted DNA Biotechniques, Vol. 12, No. 3 pp 358-360. This article indicates that a 10% dilution of bleach removes DNA from surfaces in less than a minute.
Click to expand...

halides1 said:
I have given a cite which indicates that if one cleaned the blade to be free of blood, it would be free of DNA first. In addition, I have documented that bleach is a potent destroyer of DNA, even at 2-10% of full strength. The rates of most chemical reactions are linear with respect to the concentration of the reactant; therefore, full strength bleach is expected to be much faster. My comment and literature reference in #2623 was in response to Fiona's request in #2601.
Click to expand...

halides1 said:
BobTheDonkey,

I strongly urge you to desist with the name-calling go back and look at my comments and the open letter, both of which you are seriously misunderstanding. I had not seen the Malcolm Moore article until today. Profazio, who was quoted in the Daily Telegraph, said that the knife was cleaned with bleach, but he did not provide evidence.

My position about bleach and the knife was and remains: Stefanoni opined that the knife could have been cleaned with bleach at the trial, IIRC, but she never gave any evidence of which I am aware, such as a chemical analysis for sodium hypochlorite. What Profazio said about bleach destroying blood but not DNA is false, and I have given several citations to that effect. The open letter does not specify the method of cleaning; it only says that if you clean the knife to make it free of blood, it will almost certainly be free of DNA as well. If Stefanoni or anyone else claimed that bleach was used, the chances of having usable DNA are even lower, if possible. I do not have any position on how the knife was cleaned because I do not have, nor do I know of any evidence that decides this point.

With respect to your argument in a different comment that bleaching a lab regularly would preclude contamination, I only wish stopping contamination were that easy. For one thing, one cannot bleach every surface, every pipet, etc. Contamination happens even in labs that follow the correct protocols. We have been through this before.

When you say, “You're going to present now that the knife wasn't bleached?” you are putting words into my mouth that I never said. You mixed up RFU and pg, sending me off on a wild goose chase, and I have no more patience for these distractions. I do not think you are lying. I do think you are neither intellectually nor emotionally up to discussing any of these matters in an intelligent, adult fashion.

Halides1
Click to expand...




Aaaaand. There we have it. Bald faced liar.






In regards to the RFU vs pg (measurement terms, the both, btw), I was confused about the difference in measurements and given the crosstalk, misremembered Fulcanelli's unit of measure (pg) as what had more recently been discussed by Fiona, et al (RFU). However, that oversight on my part does not, in any way, mean my point then (nor this one now) is less than valid. My mistake was an honest one - and in the scheme of the point I was making, a mistake that mattered little.

You, however, have not even admitted that you made a mistake. You have attempted to wiggle your way out of a conclusion you, for whatever reason, do not want to face - and this time have been caught lying to do so. At one point, I found this habit of yours merely disingenuous. Following your most recent comment regarding your position on the bleaching of the knife, I now have no compunctions about calling you a liar.

Note that this part may be considered an ad-hominem attack. However, I am doing nothing more than pointing out the duplicity you, yourself, have exhibited here. I have shown, time and again, that your arguments are invalid on their own fallacies - and will continue to do so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom