Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Kermit]

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 know the prints match Rudy Guede's shoes. Just admit that and let's move on.

1) Please show me the larger print which the corner "small portion" is from. If such a larger print exists, why didn't Vinci also match it along with the generic, small corner piece? That would have been much more convincing.

2) You say I "turned it around" .... where's north, south, east and west on that partial print of something? How do you know that it wasn't Francesco Vinci who "turned it around"?

 

[Kermit]

I'm not quite sure where you got that idea from what I posted.

Whoops, dyslexia got the better of me. Will clear up my prior post.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

1) Please show me the larger print which the corner "small portion" is from. If such a larger print exists, why didn't Vinci also match it along with the generic, small corner piece? That would have been much more convincing.

2) You say I "turned it around" .... where's north, south, east and west on that partial print of something? How do you know that it wasn't Francesco Vinci who "turned it around"?

Answer the question. Do you believe that Amanda's shoe print is on the pillow?

 

[Alt+F4]

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).

So if we assume they both used the bathroom that day and both used a towel in the bathroom to wash their hands then why wasn't Amanda's DNA found on the bra clasp?

 

[stilicho]

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.

Is this your final argument? Halides1 has written extensively on the source of contamination at the crimescene and he says it came from the dust or the doorknob. Have you explained to him why he is wrong and you are right?

Raffaele's DNA was found nowhere else in the crime scene, and no other evidence suggested he was present in Meredith's room.

It's always puzzled me that Sollecito has chosen to go down in flames with his American fling. You are quite correct that the forensic evidence pointing to him is weaker than that of the other two convicted murderers.

Early on this very thread, I wondered why he accepted the "invitations" to go down to the Questura at all. HumanityBlues and Quadraginta both pointed out that there would have been no reason for him to go down after the initial interviews--at least not withouth a lawyer. There's really not a lot tying him to the crime compared to AK, who lived there. And, if he hadn't helped with staging the scene after Meredith's murder, he might have gotten off scot-free.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

.
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.

So, you cannot say that Amanda's shoe print is on the pillow. There is no proof whatsoever that there is a shoe print matching Amanda. We have confirmation that Rudy's prints are on the pillow.

Amanda's shoe print was not on the pillow. End of conversation.

 

[katy_did]

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.

Yes, that's a fair point. We would certainly expect to find a lot more of Amanda's DNA in the bathroom itself (she'd use the bathroom to brush her teeth, shave, shower, etc, whereas a visitor would be unlikely to do that). But with regard to the hand towels, they would most likely be changed so frequently that you wouldn't get that steady accumulation of DNA, and they're also the one thing in the bathroom that practically everyone who used it would also use.

I'd agree that perhaps, overall, we might expect to find a slightly greater amount of Amanda's DNA on the towels than Raffaele's (even allowing for the fact she'd spent the previous week sleeping at his place). But that means little when it comes to the specific part of the towel that may have come into contact with the clasp. If it was an area Raffaele had used that day, there could easily have been more of his DNA in that particular area than Amanda's. It's a bit like the saying about statistics meaning little to the individual (or in this case, the individual sample!). If the clasp came into contact with an area of the towel Raffaele had used recently, it would have been his DNA that was transferred.

 

[Kermit]

Answer the question. Do you believe that Amanda's shoe print is on the pillow?

.
Ouuweee. I'm getting intrigued, just like when Dan O spoke in esoteric terms of turning slide 17 to the left and slide 66 to the right .... where is Bruce going to lead us???????

Bruce, asking me something that I don't know is like asking me if I believe that Christopher Columbus made a mistake and actually first arrived in Cuba rather than Hispañola.

Why don't you ask me something like: Do you believe that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have been completely forthcoming and upfront with their declarations to the investigation and trial, offering full, complete, and truthful replies to all questions asked of them?

In that case, I would say: no.

 

[Kermit]

So, you cannot say that Amanda's shoe print is on the pillow. There is no proof whatsoever that there is a shoe print matching Amanda. We have confirmation that Rudy's prints are on the pillow.

Amanda's shoe print was not on the pillow. End of conversation.

.
Bruce, when did I ever declare to you that Amanda's shoe print was on the pillow? When did we ever have any debate about this question?

The text of yours which I have put in bold could just as easily be: "So Abraham Lincoln was not a cocaine sniffer. End of conversation."

 

[RoseMontague]

Wow,
Away for one day and it took me awhile just to read the posts I missed. I think Bruce tends to pass on things he picks up at "Amanda is innocent" type sites without considering the possibility of that information being somewhat less than truthful. The posed picture of the broken pipe under the sink is one example that still bugs me. I have tried to say nice things about his website as well and I have tried to make him welcome. I thought the comment about the fish was pretty funny even if I was included as one of the fish. There is a lot of spin on the "Amanda is guilty" sites as well. I think the back and forth over who has more errors or lies is one way, although perhaps not the best way, to get at the truth. And it does provide for some humorous exchanges.

I also agree with Christiana, I think Halkides is an honest person. I have had some contact with him over a case prior to this one and he seems to me to go to great lengths to be up front about things. Being honest does not make a persons opinion of the case the correct one but at least it's a start.

 

[stilicho]

.
Ouuweee. I'm getting intrigued, just like when Dan O spoke in esoteric terms of turning slide 17 to the left and slide 66 to the right .... where is Bruce going to lead us???????

The whole exercise is to score points, I believe, instead of providing anything informative or educational.

I think most of us knew that Rudy left distinguishing footprints in Meredith's room while Amanda did not. I haven't read the Massei report but I would guess it won't identify the "other" prints as Amanda's.

But your challenge to Bruce remains valid: If he is claiming there are five identifiable Rudy footprints while the Massei report (and other available sources) say there are two then he should clean up his claims on his website.

"End of conversation", to quote the experienced police forensics expert Bruce Fisher.

 

[katy_did]

Is this your final argument? Halides1 has written extensively on the source of contamination at the crimescene and he says it came from the dust or the doorknob. Have you explained to him why he is wrong and you are right?

Well, the source of contamination can never be proven, of course. One possibility does not disqualify another. But you knew this already, right?

It's always puzzled me that Sollecito has chosen to go down in flames with his American fling. You are quite correct that the forensic evidence pointing to him is weaker than that of the other two convicted murderers.

Do you think so? I'd actually tend to disagree with you there. If we were to take every single bit of the prosecution's evidence at face value, and assume it all to be accurate, I think the evidence against Sollecito is stronger. There's nothing to place Amanda in the bedroom, and if we're to assume that her DNA on the knife is connected to the murder at all (as opposed to her using it to cook food) she could simply have been the one to clean it.

 

[katy_did]

Whoops, dyslexia got the better of me. Will clear up my prior post.

Ah, thank you. Was racking my brains trying to figure out where I'd said something that might have implied that!

 

[stilicho]

I also agree with Christiana, I think Halkides is an honest person. I have had some contact with him over a case prior to this one and he seems to me to go to great lengths to be up front about things. Being honest does not make a persons opinion of the case the correct one but at least it's a start.

Honesty comes in several different shades.

The thing we're looking for from Chris is transparency. No honest academic would ever knowingly use a source compromised by payment or "engagement" by an interest group.

Does Chris know who "engaged" Drs Johnson and Hampikian? (Cue "Jeopardy" theme).

 

[Kermit]

Ah, thank you. Was racking my brains trying to figure out where I'd said something that might have implied that!

.
Well, sometimes my typing fingers get ahead of my thoughts. Apologies.

 

[katy_did]

Erm, just read Kermit's post mentioning Vinci. Typing fingers getting ahead of me too!

 

[Alt+F4]

Well, the source of contamination can never be proven, of course.

Why not? In other cases the source of DNA contamination often came from those collecting the evidence, those testing the evidence or from other cases the lab was working on. I'm unclear on how Raffaele's defense team plans to argue contamination when they have no scientific evidence it took place.

Your theory that Raffaele only used part of the towel to dry his hands and it was that particular part of the towel that later landed on the bra clasp seems far-fetched to me.

 

[Kermit]

Honesty comes in several different shades.

The thing we're looking for from Chris is transparency. No honest academic would ever knowingly use a source compromised by payment or "engagement" by an interest group.

Does Chris know who "engaged" Drs Johnson and Hampikian? (Cue "Jeopardy" theme).

Well, he more or less said it was someone "close to the defense" (my paraphrase, quote may not be exact).

He also implied that a request made by the Italian defence team (the legal defence team) to the prosecution was at the behest of the "Libby" Johnson team. This is most curious for me: technical experts in another country (the USA) who request technical data for a report which never makes it into the courtroom in the country where the trial takes place, but instead gets propaganda news treatment in the expert's home country.

Did Ghirga know about this , if it actually happened in these terms?

 

[stilicho]

One possibility does not disqualify another. But you knew this already, right?

It does when you're trying to construct a viable alternate narrative. That's the problem with a lot of this guesswork posing as erudition. You can't just walk into a courtroom and throw everything at the wall to see what sticks. You have to come up with a convincing narrative. You only have to look as far as the OJ case if you want a high profile example of how that works.

 

[Matthew Best]

You have to come up with a convincing narrative. You only have to look as far as the OJ case if you want a high profile example of how that works.

What was the convincing narrative that the defence (who won) came up with in that case?