Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Mary_H]

Surely this has been done to death as well. How much Amanda and Raffaele "touch" DNA was found anywhere in the apartment? Assuming they were involved, how much DNA must they have left behind if they did it? We are all as certain as we can be that Rudy was there, but it isn't as if investigators were stepping over clumps of his torn out hair and pools of his blood. If he hadn't inserted part of himself into her and held her bra, how much DNA would we have from him?

There is no doubt Rudy left skin cells on the bedding. If the lab didn't bother to analyze them, it is probably because they felt they had enough to work with without going over everything with a fine tooth comb.

The lab workers analyzing the first evidence from the crime scene were working on it in the days immediately following the murder. They were looking for the killer. Mignini had not yet formulated his theory that three people sexually attacked a fourth on these linens.

After Amanda and Raffaele were accused, of course, the lab had a different purpose -- to look specifically for signs of Amanda and Raffaele. Too bad Mignini wasn't quicker on his feet -- he could have faked the evidence from the bedroom, too.

 

[Mary_H]

You bet, shuttlt.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Shuttit writes:

Surely this has been done to death as well. How much Amanda and Raffaele "touch" DNA was found anywhere in the apartment? Assuming they were involved, how much DNA must they have left behind if they did it? We are all as certain as we can be that Rudy was there, but it isn't as if investigators were stepping over clumps of his torn out hair and pools of his blood. If he hadn't inserted part of himself into her and held her bra, how much DNA would we have from him?


The DNA evidence against Guede, from inside the murder room, consists of a weak profile (y haplotype) on a vaginal swab, a strong profile on the victim's purse, and a weak profile (y haplotype) on the sleeve of the victim's sweatshirt. Any one of those samples could be the result of contamination or laboratory error. Three together form a pattern that is hard to overcome. But, let's say the vaginal swab is a laboratory error, and hypothesize that Guede may have had some kind of casual, non-sexual contact with Meredith that left his DNA on her purse and on the sleeve of her garment. It's not likely, but it is conceivable. BUT - when we add in Guede's fingerprints, in the victim's blood, in the room where the victim was killed, and Guede's bloody shoe prints in the room and in the corridor leading to the exit, the evidence becomes incontrovertible.

 

[shuttlt]

Charlie,

I can feel myself getting dragged into a debate about the evidence for the cleanup which I don't really want to do. My knowledge of it isn't sufficient to make it worth while. However, just to clarify, my point, in response to Mary's post, was that with the exception of the internal DNA, there is nothing about what Guede left behind (again, speaking purely about DNA) that would have been impossible for him to have cleaned up, had he wished. Perhaps as suggested he left DNA in locations that have not been tested, but the same could be true of Amanda and Raffaele. If Raffaele and Amanda had less physical contact with Meredith than Guede there would be probably be less DNA to begin with. If it was Rudy who did most of the restraining then might it not be quite difficult to find any trace of them regardless of whether there was a cleanup?

 

[Amazer]

"We've seen about a half a percent of the information presented in court."

Good point, shuttlt. This points up the primary difference between the innocentisti and the colpevolisti.

The first group want Amanda to be innocent, so they look for data that support her innocence. The second group want her to be guilty, so they look for data that support her guilt.

I have no reason to 'want' Amanda to be guilty. It's just that from the information available I cannot reach another conclusion.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

I think it's more like this:

One side wants Amanda to be innocent, regardless of what evidence there is to the contrary.

The people in the middle (like me, surprisingly) want to find out the truth, and as such are looking for evidence one way or the other. So far, there have been no solid, evidence based refutations of the evidence against Amanda - and this is problematic.

On the other side are those who have been convinced by the evidence that Amanda is guilty. I do not think it is maliciousness toward Amanda on their part, as you would make it seem.


Honestly, I don't actually care one whit either way - Amanda either did it or she didn't - my purpose in being here was initially to help sort out the truth/cut through the fallacious arguments. The prevalence of fallacious arguments and not much else from the Pro-Amanda camp, along with the evidence presented, leads me to believe that she's guilty. I continue to post in this thread only to point out problems with logic (even if mine's not always right).

Your in the middle?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

What scientific proof has been offered that Amanda is innocent?

That's not how it's supposed to work. You need to prove that Amanda is guilty. There is no scientific evidence to prove this.

 

[capealadin]

Bruce: Re no fingerprints of Amanda found in Meredit's room: You stated earlier that because fingerprints are smudged.....true, and that,s why Amanda,s were in the room, albeit smudged.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Whether or not Rudy Guede is guilty is a completely separate matter.

Amanda and Raffaele do not have to find the actual murderer to prove their innocence.

This isn't the Fugitive. This is real life.

I personally believe that Rudy Guede Murdered Meredith but this has no bearing on whether or not Amanda and Raffaele are innocent.

Amanda and Raffaele were not in the cottage at the time of the murder. There is no credible evidence proving otherwise.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Bruce: Re no fingerprints of Amanda found in Meredit's room: You stated earlier that because fingerprints are smudged.....true, and that,s why Amanda,s were in the room, albeit smudged.

There is no credible evidence whatsoever putting Amanda or Raffaele in Meredith's room at the time of the murder.

That is all you need to focus on.

 

[shuttlt]

That's not how it's supposed to work. You need to prove that Amanda is guilty. There is no scientific evidence to prove this.

That depends. If people claim that they are 100% certain that she is innocent, then the burden of proof falls on them in the same way as people who claim she is 100% guilty. Likewise for innocent beyond reasonable doubt and guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

That depends. If people claim that they are 100% certain that she is innocent, then the burden of proof falls on them in the same way as people who claim she is 100% guilty. Likewise for innocent beyond reasonable doubt and guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Your comment simply does not apply to the court of law. Amanda has no interest in winning the internet debate.

In court, you must prove someone guilty.

 

[Kermit]

The appeal will highlight the complete incompetence of the investigators. The DNA will be challenged.

There is a new witness, and there is more to come about Rudy. I do not know the details of this new information. We will have to wait for the appeal.

.
Bruce, you surprise me. You seem to know everything about this case, yet you say you don't know the details that the Italian press, and even dearest CBS are providing: the new witness is none other than Mario Alessi, who kidnapped and brutally murdered a two-year old child, Tommaso Onofri:



Isn't it kind of a shame, that the defence appeal is using the testimony of such a person (if Alessi can be classified as such) to support Amanda and Raffaele?

What's incongruent is that an infant murderer is testifying on their behalf, while Raffaele continues to use his right to silence.

Wouldn't it be better for all if Amanda and Raffaele would get to work on the basics of a defence, starting out with just working out alibis which coincide?

 

[tsig]

What a crazy idea, a burglar wearing gloves. I have never heard of such a thing.

When you're making it up as you go along why not make it colorful?

 

[shuttlt]

Your comment simply does not apply to the court of law. Amanda has no interest in winning the internet debate.

In court, you must prove someone guilty.

We aren't in court. Is your position as an advocate then that she may well be guilty, but it has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt? If that's your position, then I agree that the burden of proof falls on you only to the same extent as it falls on the defence. For the defence, afterall, anything short of guilty beyond reasonable doubt is acceptable.... but then again, it is their job to defend the guilty as well as the innocent. Isn't your position that she is clearly and definately innocent? That claim requires the same level of proof as claiming she is clearly and definately guilty.

 

[Dan O.]

By that logic, like any good burglar would do, he would have entered through the kitchen. He didn't do that either, did he?

Fillomenia testified that the shutters would not latch because the wood was swollen. The shutters rubbed on the sill preventing them from closing far enough to engage the latch. The open shutter is an open invitation to any potential burglar. If the open window is noticeable from the street, the odds of a burglar choosing your home greatly improve.

After the investigation, this shutter had been forced closed and presumably latched. It is no longer an inviting entry point so wasn't used in subsequent breakins.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

.
Bruce, you surprise me. You seem to know everything about this case, yet you say you don't know the details that the Italian press, and even dearest CBS are providing: the new witness is none other than Mario Alessi, who kidnapped and brutally murdered a two-year old child, Tommaso Onofri:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_389264bdad8d80fe8d.jpg[/qimg][qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_389264bdad8f1c1739.jpg[/qimg]

Isn't it kind of a shame, that the defence appeal is using the testimony of such a person (if Alessi can be classified as such) to support Amanda and Raffaele?

What's incongruent is that an infant murderer is testifying on their behalf, while Raffaele continues to use his right to silence.

Wouldn't it be better for all if Amanda and Raffaele would get to work on the basics of a defence, starting out with just working out alibis which coincide?

I never said that I knew everything about this case. I was also speaking about someone else. I give absolutely no credibility to Mario Alessi. Please do not assume otherwise.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

We aren't in court. Is your position as an advocate then that she may well be guilty, but it has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt? If that's your position, then I agree that the burden of proof falls on you only to the same extent as it falls on the defence. For the defence, afterall, anything short of guilty beyond reasonable doubt is acceptable.... but then again, it is their job to defend the guilty as well as the innocent. Isn't your position that she is clearly and definately innocent? That claim requires the same level of proof as claiming she is clearly and definately guilty.

I am here to discuss a wrongful conviction. You must prove guild beyond a reasonable doubt. This certainly was not achieved.

My personal opinion or yours has no bearing on the case. I personally believe that Amanda Knox is Innocent.

 

[Dan O.]

Dan O suggested that he used a ladder to enter Filomena's window.

I only suggested that scaling the wall wasn't the only option. (though technically, climbing a ladder up a wall is also scaling). Of course, since that particular wall has a built in ladder in the form of the window grate below, there is no need for a burglar to bring their own.

Are you also disputing my claim that there was a ladder visible in one of the pictures of the house taken during the investigation?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Fillomenia testified that the shutters would not latch because the wood was swollen. The shutters rubbed on the sill preventing them from closing far enough to engage the latch. The open shutter is an open invitation to any potential burglar. If the open window is noticeable from the street, the odds of a burglar choosing your home greatly improve.

After the investigation, this shutter had been forced closed and presumably latched. It is no longer an inviting entry point so wasn't used in subsequent breakins.

One additional note about that window, it now has bars on it. Apparently the owner of the cottage felt it was a security risk.