Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bruce Fisher said:
...
Fulcanelli refuses to admit that he failed to correct an error on his site in regard to Amanda being arrested in Seattle. This is a major issue. It related directly to the character assassination that has occurred in the media over the past 2 years.

Any objections from the board? Nope, nothing. Silence.

...
Click to expand...

http://web1.seattle.gov/courts/cpi/CaseSummary.aspx?caseNo=202557635

No idea what the background was, but the link shows she was charged and had to pay a fine.
 
tsig said:
Let's leave PMF matters and comments on PMF.
Click to expand...

If we are going to talk about errors on my site then we are also going to talk about errors on their site. Their errors are much more important. They deal with misrepresenting actual evidence and character assassination.
 
Wow, this forum is moving fast at the moment. With apologies for the delay, this is a reply to a post from a couple of days ago.
Fulcanelli said:
Alright, so let me get this this straight...after reading you people for weeks now arguing that one can transfer ones DNA by something almost merely by looking at it, your're now arguing that it's difficult, now that it's become convenient to do so?

So let's work this out, Rudy grabs towel's, presses them to Meredith's neck but leaves none of his DNA on the towels because leaving DNA is now suddenly conveniently difficult. Raffaele however, 'easily' leaves his DNA on the towels for which we have no evidence he ever used and this DNA was then easily transferred Rudy's foot, from which it was then easily transferred to the clasp, but not leaving any blood on it in the process mind or any of Raffaele's DNA in a single other of Rudy's prints...have I got that about right? What would Occam say?

How about this one...I've got a theory, you'll love this. How about...Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy attacked Meredith. Raffaele grabbed Meredith's bra clasp and cut it off to remove the bra. I like it. It fits all the evidence, contradicts none of the evidence and is simple, requiring not a single piece of intellectual gymnastics and contortionism. Indeed, it meets all the criteria of Occam's Razor. I can't find any fault with it. What do you reckon?
Click to expand...
Hmm, let's step back a second here. You say "Rudy leaves none of his DNA on the towels". How do we know? They were never tested. His DNA may not have been transferred from the towels to the bra clasp in the same way as DNA from other people possibly was, but it's rather an illogical leap from that to conclude that his DNA was nowhere on the towels. It's like saying, "Rudy's DNA wasn't on the left cup of the bra, so it can't have been anywhere else on the bra either".

Now, as to your other points. It seems to me it's a little pointless to argue back and forth about exactly where Rudy was standing, or exactly where the towels were at each particular point (for example) because the simple truth is we just don't know. Here's what we do know:

  1. Raffaele had visited the cottage fairly frequently in the week leading up to the murder (Laura said he'd visited 4 or 5 times while she was there, which would indicate it was probably more than that).

  2. It seems reasonable to assume that during some of these visits, he used the bathroom, and reasonable again to assume that he used the hand towels to dry his hands.

  3. Drying your hands on a towel is an excellent way to leave DNA, due to the rubbing action and friction used. We know, for example, that the towels from Rudy's flat contained DNA from Rudy, and that the towels from Raffaele's flat contained his and Amanda's mixed DNA. Hence, it seems very probable that the towels from Amanda's bathroom contained DNA from anyone who had used that bathroom in the days preceding the murder - which would almost certainly have included Raffaele.

  4. Both the towels from the bathroom were taken into Meredith's bedroom immediately after the attack happened. This means that an item or items which very likely contained Raffaele's DNA were moved into the crime scene, contaminating it.

  5. Raffaele's DNA, along with the DNA from several other people, was found on the bra clasp; the bra clasp was found underneath Meredith's body, in the same area as the towels. Raffaele's DNA was identifiable because they were able to test his Y chromosome. The DNA from the other people was mixed female, and thus less easy to identify. Raffaele's DNA was found nowhere else in the crime scene, and no other evidence suggested he was present in Meredith's room.

  6. Rudy's DNA was found on the back of the bra, adjacent to the bra clasp. Rudy's DNA was found on a very logical part of the bra to be holding if he was cutting it; a great deal more logical than would be a hook on the bra clasp.

Now sure, I can't say for certain that the bra clasp came into contact with either of the towels. But equally, it's impossible to say for certain that it didnt, either. It's a possibility. And that means it's a possibility the bra clasp was contaminated with Raffaele's DNA via a hand towel he had used, and which was taken by Rudy into the crime scene. That possibility casts doubt on the bra clasp as evidence. And I reckon Mr Occam would agree.
 
Last edited:
Bruce Fisher said:
If we are going to talk about errors on my site then we are also going to talk about errors on their site. Their errors are much more important. They deal with misrepresenting actual evidence and character assassination.
Click to expand...


Can you really type stuff like this with a straight face. I sure can't read it without bursting into laughter.

Your dishonest representations about Mignini are not character assassinations? Your persistent repetition of statements proven to be false is not misrepresentation of the evidence?

You must not have a mirror in your house, because if you could see yourself as others see you you would not be able to write comments like this. It would be too embarrassing.

Why don't you just concentrate on backing up your statements here, and quit worrying about your personal problems on other boards?
 
Last edited:
Bruce Fisher said:
I know that 90% of you feel that Amanda is guilty. You attack any viewpoint that differs from that.
Click to expand...
.
Bruce, just think about it: this discussion thread was set up and called "Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel" and not "The Brutal Murder of Meredith Kercher". The search terms are "Amanda Knox", "Douglas Preston" and "Giuliano Mignini", and not "wild Americans in Europe".

With that record, it is indeed curious that you feel that this is a losing battle, dialectically speaking.


Bruce Fisher said:
I have repeatedly shown that Kermit is completely wrong when it comes to the shoe prints. Kermit also thought it was necessary to put a comment about Amanda's vibrator on a powerpoint presentation in regard to shoe prints.
Click to expand...

Don't get everyone excited: there is no new Powerpoint out there, just the collage image which I used to show that what you call a "perfect match" for Rudy's Nike could just as easily be a match for any other object, from Raffaele's shoes, to Amanda's personal items (BTW, the way that we the public found out about the existence of said item is thanks to Luciano Ghirga, Amanda's lawyer)

Just one question, Bruce: ¿How have you "repeatedly shown" me that I'm completely wrong? I think my comparative image is quite clear.


Bruce Fisher said:
.... don't try and tell me that the majority of you are here for an honest debate.
Click to expand...

Who are you accusing? The posters? The readers? The people who haven't yet made up their mind?
 
Kermit said:
.
Bruce, just think about it: this discussion thread was set up and called "Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel" and not "The Brutal Murder of Meredith Kercher". The search terms are "Amanda Knox", "Douglas Preston" and "Giuliano Mignini", and not "wild Americans in Europe".

With that record, it is indeed curious that you feel that this is a losing battle, dialectically speaking.




Don't get everyone excited: there is no new Powerpoint out there, just the collage image which I used to show that what you call a "perfect match" for Rudy's Nike could just as easily be a match for any other object, from Raffaele's shoes, to Amanda's personal items (BTW, the way that we the public found out about the existence of said item is thanks to Luciano Ghirga, Amanda's lawyer)

Just one question, Bruce: ¿How have you "repeatedly shown" me that I'm completely wrong? I think my comparative image is quite clear.




Who are you accusing? The posters? The readers? The people who haven't yet made up their mind?
Click to expand...

Do you believe that Amanda's shoe print is on the pillow?
 
christianahannah said:
There are strong advocates for one side or the other posting on this forum. I don't think that makes either side liars, just people who are very firm in their belief of what happened that night.
Click to expand...

Outright lying is one form of deception. Deception comes in many forms, though.

1] Halides1 claims to have evidence that Johnson and Hampikian (either or both) have written an open letter regarding the DNA forensics on behalf of an individual or a group. We have a right to know who these people are.

2] Charlie Wilkes claims to have Spheron-VR imagery from the crimescene and several GB of data pertinent to the case. We have a right to see it if he is making claims based on its existence.

3] Bruce Fisher claims to have information direct from unknown or unstated individuals or groups. We have a right to know the source(s).

There's three quick reasons that the practice of dishonesty and deception is entirely one-sided. Claims are being supported without proper attribution. If any of these three were academics they would know that would be grounds for termination.
 
ETA: Misread Katy_did's post. My question to her didn't make sense, as per her reply below.
 
Last edited:
katy_did said:
And that means it's a possibility the bra clasp was contaminated with Raffaele's DNA via a hand towel he had used, and which was taken by Rudy into the crime scene. That possibility casts doubt on the bra clasp as evidence. And I reckon Mr Occam would agree.
Click to expand...

Before I comment I have a few questions about your theory that perhaps someone could answer:

1. Were the towels found with Meredith's body hand towels or bath towels?
2. Did Amanda and Meredith acutally have hand towels in their bathroom?
3. How often did Amanda and Meredith change the towels in their bathroom?
4. Is there any evidence from the four girls who lived in the apartment that Raffaele ever used the bathroom or the towels in it?
 
Bruce Fisher said:
Do you believe that Amanda's shoe print is on the pillow?
Click to expand...

We have already discussed the shoe print. You took a small portion of the larger print turned it around and made it almost match another shoe. You ignore the fact the small sample is part of a larger print. It is simply not credible. You also make a juvenile comment that the print could be a match for Amanda's vibrator.

You know the prints match Rudy Guede's shoes. Just admit that and let's move on.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
Do you believe that Amanda's shoe print is on the pillow?
Click to expand...
.
Now, my friend Bruce, we have a starting point for a worthwhile discussion.

On the basis of Francesco Vinci's images, I believe that there are indeterminant forms which left specific marks and stains in blood on the pillow ( in addition to at least a couple of stains which appear to be clearly from a Nike shoe which we can attribute to Rudy ).

Those indeterminant forms could be associated with any number of objects.

My argument isn't so much that this or that stain is a female shoe print, but rather that this or that stain is not a "perfect match" for Rudy's Nike (in addition to the obvious matches). You had been saying that there are 5 "perfect matches", but I don't see it at that tally.
 
Alt+F4 said:
Before I comment I have a few questions about your theory that perhaps someone could answer:

1. Were the towels found with Meredith's body hand towels or bath towels?
2. Did Amanda and Meredith acutally have hand towels in their bathroom?
3. How often did Amanda and Meredith change the towels in their bathroom?
4. Is there any evidence from the four girls who lived in the apartment that Raffaele ever used the bathroom or the towels in it?
Click to expand...
The towels were ones Rudy said he fetched from the bathroom shared by Amanda and Meredith, and I think they've been described as 'hand towels' (need to check that). There were three towels in total, and Rudy says he fetched at least two; it could be that the third was Meredith's bath towel, which she may have kept in her room. Amanda said she forgot to take her own towel into the bathroom next day, so it sounds as if this was the arrangement re the bath towels, and also that there were no towels remaining in the bathroom she could have used instead.

I'm not sure how often Amanda and Meredith changed the towels. Amanda and Raffaele had cooked lunch at the cottage the day of the murder, so it seems fairly likely they both used the bathroom that day (we know Amanda did, because she said so in her testimony in court).

I don't think any of the girls were asked whether Raffaele had ever used the bathroom (!).
 
katy_did said:
Now sure, I can't say for certain that the bra clasp came into contact with either of the towels. But equally, it's impossible to say for certain that it didnt, either. It's a possibility. And that means it's a possibility the bra clasp was contaminated with Raffaele's DNA via a hand towel he had used, and which was taken by Rudy into the crime scene. That possibility casts doubt on the bra clasp as evidence. And I reckon Mr Occam would agree.
Click to expand...

Another thought on your theory katy:

If the DNA contamination occured via a bathroom hand towel then wouldn't Amanda's DNA be found in a higher amount than Raffaele's? After all, it was the bathroom she used everyday for almost two months and a bathroom that he used maybe four or five times in the course of one week.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom