• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bruce Fisher said:
You make bold statements as if you know these things for certain.

If Rudy wanted to clean off his show it would not be out of the ordinary to take it off.

The footprint on the bathmat is inconclusive. Seeing that the only shoe prints or footprints, set in Meredith's blood, in the cottage belong to Rudy, it is reasonable to say that the print belongs to him. The evidence points to Rudy.

Rudy took the duvet off the bed and covered Meredith. He put his bloody knife down on the bed making the imprint on the bed. He went through Meredith's purse. He took her cell phones and money. He stepped in blood on the way out of the room.

The evidence supports this scenario.
Click to expand...
Good evening Bruce,
He also, most likely, took Miss Kercher's apartment keys...
RWVBWL
 
stilicho said:
OK. Which is it? Are you claiming the Perugian authorities ignored all the evidence and regular police work?

Please establish, with cites, what this "undercurrent of sexuality" entails. Don't keep falling back on something you encountered on a 'comedian' blog.

We provided you with plenty of opportunity to tacitly withdraw this lie. Now you repeat it without any evidence.
Click to expand...

Have you been drinking? You seem to have kind of missed the "flow" of the conversation here today. I thought you were done beating that dead horse.

Go back and read how I replied to you the first time you talked about a "comedian." When I am convinced you are actually reading my posts and understanding them as a sober person would, we'll talk.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
You make bold statements as if you know these things for certain.

If Rudy wanted to clean off his show it would not be out of the ordinary to take it off.

The footprint on the bathmat is inconclusive. Seeing that the only shoe prints or footprints, set in Meredith's blood, in the cottage belong to Rudy, it is reasonable to say that the print belongs to him. The evidence points to Rudy.

Rudy took the duvet off the bed and covered Meredith. He put his bloody knife down on the bed making the imprint on the bed. He went through Meredith's purse. He took her cell phones and money. He stepped in blood on the way out of the room.

The evidence supports this scenario.
Click to expand...

I think it is generally you who makes bold statements as if they were true: you also have a tendency to repeat them as if that makes them more true.

Evidence for the idea that Guede went through her purse?
 
Fiona said:
I think it is generally you who makes bold statements as if they were true: you also have a tendency to repeat them as if that makes them more true.

Evidence for the idea that Guede went through her purse?
Click to expand...

Fiona, when someone's DNA is on the freaking purse, and things are missing from said purse, that is pretty strong said person went through that purse. This is not rocket science. I don't understand how people can talk about the strength of circumstantial evidence and then look at evidence this obvious and say there's no evidence to support it.
 
Last edited:
There is no blood or dna in the purse, so far as I know, HumanityBlues. As you say, his hands were bloody when he moved the purse. I do not say that it is impossible that he managed to go through it with bloody hands yet leave no trace: I say there is no evdence that he did so. I also do not know if anything is missing from that purse. I am assuming that "purse" is used in the American sense (though now i come to think of it I do not know this to be true). That being so we do not know that any of the missing items were in it. If it is UK useage I think it likely the credit card was in it: but if it is handbag it may or may not have been
 
Last edited:
Fiona said:
There is no blood or dna in the purse, so far as I know, HumanityBlues. As you say, his hands were bloody when he moved the purse. I do not say that it is impossible that he managed to go through it with bloody hands yet leave no trace: I say there is no evdence that he did so
Click to expand...

Why would he just pick up the purse then? Cause he didn't like where it was situated in the room?
 
HumanityBlues said:
Fiona, when someone's DNA is on the freaking purse, and things are missing from said purse, that is pretty strong said person went through that purse. This is not rocket science. I don't understand how people can talk about the strength of circumstantial evidence and then look at evidence this obvious and say there's no evidence to support it.
Click to expand...

AFAIK, nobody was convicted of taking the things that were missing. This speaks to the weakness of that particular evidence and the strength of the evidence employed in the successful charges.

As I mentioned before, there has been no evidence presented that the credit cards were either recovered or used. This would suggest that a burglar was not responsible for their disappearance.

How's that for circumstances?
 
Mary_H said:
I'll have to go dig up some of my pal Al-Fakh Yugoudh's informative posts. First I'm going to go watch TV for awhile, though. "Breaking Bad" is on tonight, don'tcha know.

Speaking of TV, am I the only one on this thread who does not believe stilicho when he says he has never seen the video clip of Amanda and Raffaele kissing?
Click to expand...

I believe him... because I've not seen that clip till date either.

I'll admit though that Amanda's murder trial got very little (none) media attention here in India. I do watch BBC world regularly though, and I haven't seen or heard from this case there either.
 
BobTheDonkey said:
That still doesn't explain Meredith's DNA on the knife, Raffaele's DNA on the bra clasp, the mixed DNA footprints, the faked break-in, the inability of Raffaele and Amanda to have consistent, congruent alibis, etc...
Click to expand...
Good evening Bob,
or good morning if you're on on the other side of the Atlantic.

I wrote of this:
"If Guede did not stab Miss Kercher, but this other person did, (that is not Raffaele or Amanda, as WE believe), well it seems rather obvious, to me at least, that Guede would know him quite well. Could it be the guy who disabled the alarm during the break-in at the lawyers office? Who is he? Did the cops get fingerprints from that burglary. I wonder if they did, if so, were they compared to any of the unattributed fingerprints from Miss Kercher's apartment? I wonder if there have been any more 2nd story robberies in the area after the murder of Miss Kercher?
Hmmm, just wondering."

And you wrote back the same ol' arguments in reply. With some 1600 posts here, haven't you you figured out the answers yourself thru the correspondance you have shared? I ask this simply because after corresponding with sooo many posts, well you must have a great idea about what you write of. This just my own observation though...

I am skeptical of the courts decission regarding the conviction of Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox, so I too joined the forum here on the James Randi Educational Foundation. Though I am not college educated, I do have a different type of knowledge to bring here to the table, so to speak. So by digging into what information I can find, I have presented an alternate theory, that relies on some of what the court states, some of what the defense states, And I also put more weight on Miss Formica's testimony, which seems to have not carried much weight with the court. I also have used "street smarts" to look at this crime with a different view than is usually discussed, and have formed a decent opinion for myself, which I have shared here. Attack me if you wish, and/or don't believe that it could have happened that way, but so far, the particulars match up if you take out any mention that Raffaele and Amanda were involved in Miss Kercher's killing.

One thing I wonder is how Guede managed to gain Miss Kercher's confidence to be allowed inside that evening? Maybe when she came home, instead of heading straight upstairs, she opened the boys apartment downstairs to water the "plants". Maybe Guede offered to smoke out with her, and then his "friend" showed up also and they went upstairs. Or maybe he/they just forced their way inside immediately. But if Miss Kercher had gotten home around 9:00ish, and the bank was called around 10:15ish, and Miss Formica saw that other person shes says is not Guede leaving around 10:30ish, well it appears that Guede, with or without his aquaintance, was there a long time with Miss Kercher.
RWVBWL
 
RWVBWL said:
Good evening Bob,
or good morning if you're on on the other side of the Atlantic.

I wrote of this:
"If Guede did not stab Miss Kercher, but this other person did, (that is not Raffaele or Amanda, as WE believe), well it seems rather obvious, to me at least, that Guede would know him quite well. Could it be the guy who disabled the alarm during the break-in at the lawyers office? Who is he? Did the cops get fingerprints from that burglary. I wonder if they did, if so, were they compared to any of the unattributed fingerprints from Miss Kercher's apartment? I wonder if there have been any more 2nd story robberies in the area after the murder of Miss Kercher?
Hmmm, just wondering."

And you wrote back the same ol' arguments in reply. With some 1600 posts here, haven't you you figured out the answers yourself thru the correspondance you have shared? I ask this simply because after corresponding with sooo many posts, well you must have a great idea about what you write of. This just my own observation though...

I am skeptical of the courts decission regarding the conviction of Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox, so I too joined the forum here on the James Randi Educational Foundation. Though I am not college educated, I do have a different type of knowledge to bring here to the table, so to speak. So by digging into what information I can find, I have presented an alternate theory, that relies on some of what the court states, some of what the defense states, And I also put more weight on Miss Formica's testimony, which seems to have not carried much weight with the court. I also have used "street smarts" to look at this crime with a different view than is usually discussed, and have formed a decent opinion for myself, which I have shared here. Attack me if you wish, and/or don't believe that it could have happened that way, but so far, the particulars match up if you take out any mention that Raffaele and Amanda were involved in Miss Kercher's killing.

One thing I wonder is how Guede managed to gain Miss Kercher's confidence to be allowed inside that evening? Maybe when she came home, instead of heading straight upstairs, she opened the boys apartment downstairs to water the "plants". Maybe Guede offered to smoke out with her, and then his "friend" showed up also and they went upstairs. Or maybe he/they just forced their way inside immediately. But if Miss Kercher had gotten home around 9:00ish, and the bank was called around 10:15ish, and Miss Formica saw that other person shes says is not Guede leaving around 10:30ish, well it appears that Guede, with or without his aquaintance, was there a long time with Miss Kercher.
RWVBWL
Click to expand...
Sorry for my spelling folks, I will get spell check installed on this older computer I type upon. Though I try and proof-read, I do miss some mis-spelled words. But my sentence structure is how I like to speak, so I hope that you get the gist of what I write. Thanks for corresponding back, to the ones who do...
RWVBWL
 
stilicho said:
Burglars steal things they plan to use or sell. This one didn't.
Click to expand...

The problem is, the credit cards, cash, and keys, did not just get up and walk away by themselves. Again this isn't rocket science. Where do women keep their keys, credit cards, and cash? Their purse. What was missing from the purse? Credit cards, keys, and cash. Whose DNA was on the purse? It was Rudy's. Come on, all the evidence points to him being the one to take those things. It's pretty simple. Fine, no one got convicted for theft. Whatever. Common sense says of the three, he's the one who took the stuff out of the purse.
 
RWVBWL said:
Good evening Bob,
or good morning if you're on on the other side of the Atlantic.

I wrote of this:
"If Guede did not stab Miss Kercher, but this other person did, (that is not Raffaele or Amanda, as WE believe), well it seems rather obvious, to me at least, that Guede would know him quite well. Could it be the guy who disabled the alarm during the break-in at the lawyers office? Who is he? Did the cops get fingerprints from that burglary. I wonder if they did, if so, were they compared to any of the unattributed fingerprints from Miss Kercher's apartment? I wonder if there have been any more 2nd story robberies in the area after the murder of Miss Kercher?
Hmmm, just wondering."

And you wrote back the same ol' arguments in reply. With some 1600 posts here, haven't you you figured out the answers yourself thru the correspondance you have shared? I ask this simply because after corresponding with sooo many posts, well you must have a great idea about what you write of. This just my own observation though...

I am skeptical of the courts decission regarding the conviction of Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox, so I too joined the forum here on the James Randi Educational Foundation. Though I am not college educated, I do have a different type of knowledge to bring here to the table, so to speak. So by digging into what information I can find, I have presented an alternate theory, that relies on some of what the court states, some of what the defense states, And I also put more weight on Miss Formica's testimony, which seems to have not carried much weight with the court. I also have used "street smarts" to look at this crime with a different view than is usually discussed, and have formed a decent opinion for myself, which I have shared here. Attack me if you wish, and/or don't believe that it could have happened that way, but so far, the particulars match up if you take out any mention that Raffaele and Amanda were involved in Miss Kercher's killing.

One thing I wonder is how Guede managed to gain Miss Kercher's confidence to be allowed inside that evening? Maybe when she came home, instead of heading straight upstairs, she opened the boys apartment downstairs to water the "plants". Maybe Guede offered to smoke out with her, and then his "friend" showed up also and they went upstairs. Or maybe he/they just forced their way inside immediately. But if Miss Kercher had gotten home around 9:00ish, and the bank was called around 10:15ish, and Miss Formica saw that other person shes says is not Guede leaving around 10:30ish, well it appears that Guede, with or without his aquaintance, was there a long time with Miss Kercher.
RWVBWL
Click to expand...

Along with every other argument regarding the bra clasp and knife DNA, you have failed to account for these pieces of evidence. This is why in over 10,000 posts I continue to bring them up. All that has been established is that DNA contamination can happen. However, no explanation for how that contamination happened in this case has been forthcoming.

Likewise, we have heard many apologetic arguments regarding the broken window - however, we have heard no convincing arguments regarding how it happened. The best we have is a stick and a ladder and somehow managing to unlatch a window through a hole while perched precariously on the lower bars - and all without cutting himself nor brushing any glass into the garden nor leaving a mark on the wall nor footprints in the garden. There is also zero evidence of Rudy having ever been in Filomena's room.

So, no, your scenario doesn't explain all the evidence.

Additionally, you argue that Rudy took the keys with him when he left. So, what, he took them, locked the front door (only without stopping in his flight to do so - bloody footprints and all that), and tossed them before returning to the scene? So that's why he had to break the window? That doesn't compute, sir. The front door was not locked when the bloody footprints exited the cottage. There was no pause, no turning around - it was straight out the door. Thus, the door was not locked when he later returned. I would imagine he would not immediately suspect someone had arrived home in the interim given the unlocked front door, no lights, no police - so why would he have needed to break the window?
 
HumanityBlues said:
The problem is, the credit cards, cash, and keys, did not just get up and walk away by themselves. Again this isn't rocket science. Where do women keep their keys, credit cards, and cash? Their purse. What was missing from the purse? Credit cards, keys, and cash. Whose DNA was on the purse? It was Rudy's. Come on, all the evidence points to him being the one to take those things. It's pretty simple. Fine, no one got convicted for theft. Whatever. Common sense says of the three, he's the one who took the stuff out of the purse.
Click to expand...
No blood on the phones. So he dumped the purse with bloody hands, went to the bathroom, cleaned his hands, and returned for the phones?

Makes about no sense.
 
BobTheDonkey said:
No blood on the phones. So he dumped the purse with bloody hands, went to the bathroom, cleaned his hands, and returned for the phones?

Makes about no sense.
Click to expand...

The problem is, you assume that "no blood on the phones" demands your conclusion "so he dumped the purse with bloody hands, went to the bathroom, cleaned his hands, and returned for the phones." Be your own self skeptic and think of the circumstance where this would occur; you will see it's not that hard.
 
HumanityBlues said:
The problem is, you assume that "no blood on the phones" demands your conclusion "so he dumped the purse with bloody hands, went to the bathroom, cleaned his hands, and returned for the phones." Be your own self skeptic and think of the circumstance where this would occur; you will see it's not that hard.
Click to expand...

Ok, then you provide an alternate scenario where he leaves the purse bloody but not the phones?
 
HumanityBlues said:
The problem is, the credit cards, cash, and keys, did not just get up and walk away by themselves. Again this isn't rocket science. Where do women keep their keys, credit cards, and cash? Their purse. What was missing from the purse? Credit cards, keys, and cash. Whose DNA was on the purse? It was Rudy's. Come on, all the evidence points to him being the one to take those things. It's pretty simple. Fine, no one got convicted for theft. Whatever. Common sense says of the three, he's the one who took the stuff out of the purse.
Click to expand...

If you mean a handbag, I don't keep my keys in one when at home: I put them on the table when I get in. Many people I know do not keep their phone in their handbag at home, either: they put them within easy reach. I keep my credit card in my purse: but that is not a purse as americans use the word. Sometimes my purse is in my handbag and sometimes it is not when I am at home. I do not know what percentage of women do like I do and what percentage keep those things in their handbag when they are at home. So I cannot see that there is evidence to support this conclusion: though it may be correct
 
HumanityBlues said:
So you won't even take a gander? Really? And what do you think happened to the money and credit cards? Do you have a theory about that?
Click to expand...

They got tossed. :rolleyes:

And, no, I'm not playing these guessing games, HB. You present that you have an alternate scenario, then provide it. If not, then you need to admit as such and withdraw your "common sense" statement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom