Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Bruce Fischer]

Good night Bob. Go back and read my posts. Grow up.

 

[Fiona]

We have all read your posts, Bruce Fisher. You make assertions. They are challenged. You do not answer those challenges. And then you claim you have proved your case and we now all agree with your assertions. It is quite annoying really.

What you really have to do is first to accept that some of us do not think you are correct, and that no amount of saying "actually x happened", or "Y is the truth" does anything to convinced anybody, so long as you keep ignoring bits of evidence that dont suit you. Why should we take your bare word for anything? That is what you are asking us to do. You say you have provided evidence: you haven't. You have provided some photographs, for example, which do not prove what you say they prove. You are entitled to your perception of them, certainy. We are also entitled to look at them and to take account of other evidence such as testimony and to decide that you are wrong. You say things like "nobody with any credibility believes...." but as you say, that is nobody except the judges in the court (who heard all the evidence); the police (who have no reason to "frame" AK or RS); the judges who heard the various applicatons and who presided in court; many people here who came with no preconceptions whatsoever. In short nobody has any credibility unless they agree with you. That is not productive.

I understand you are very committed to your point of view. I understand that you do not seem able to believe that some of us are not committed in the same way: but I really am not. The evidence led me to my conclusion. I am very conscious I have not seen or heard all of the evidence because I am not a party to the proceedings. I am open to any account which explains all the facts. But I am not open to an account which requires a lot of people to be involved in a conspiracy:the discarding of parts of the evidence in order to make it work; and a succession of just so stories which fly in the face of the evidence we do have in favour of increasingly far fetched stories (though MaryH is more guilty of the latter than you are: perhaps because you avoid explaining things like why AK accused an innocent man of murder and why Guede would suddenly turn into a violent murderer and rapist).

Passion does not make you correct, Bruce Fisher. You seem to be quite frustrated that those things which have convinced you do not convince me or others: well that is just the way it goes. I have no axe to grind at all. But you have not made your case.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Good night Bob. Go back and read my posts. Grow up.

Woah there Bruce. You're the one taking this discussion places it need not go.

You made the assertion that the lack of Rudy's DNA in Filomena's room was meaningless because there was no DNA found in the room. My argument has absolutely nothing to do with who's DNA was found, only that there was DNA found. In other words, you lied. Knowingly. I would like to see that lie retracted.

You resort to personal attacks whenever you are pressed in regards to just how your arguments are wrong. Is that how a grownup acts? Because, if it is, I prefer to not grow up

 

[Bruce Fischer]

We have all read your posts, Bruce Fisher. You make assertions. They are challenged. You do not answere those challenges. And then you claim you have proved your case and we now all agree with your assertions. It is quite annoying really.

Fiona, I answered Bob twice. Have a good evening.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

You asked questions. I answered them.
Your assertion that despite having the most incriminating evidence against him, Rudy is somehow innocent of the actions you listed above, is a fallacy. The areas of the crime scene that can't be directly attributed to Rudy you decide to fill in the blanks with Amanda and Rafaelle, not because it's impossible that Rudy would be the most obvious perpetrator, but because you believe Amanda and Rafaelle must have had something to do with the murder. Therefore, because no one's DNA was found on the cellphones you fill in the blank with Amanda and Rafelle. For some reason Rudy's DNA on Meredith's purse isn't reason to believe he rifled through it, so you again fill in the blank with Amanda and Rafaelle. Somebody had to lock the door. Who did it? Fill in the blank: Amanda and Rafaelle. This is what I perceived from your post and is the reason I answered your questions.

You listed the double DNA knife as evidence and I responded to that for obvious reasons. Whatever it had to do with your response to Bruce, the fact remains that outside of the judges, no one credible takes the knife as serious evidence of anything. Fulcanelli has listed Barbie Nadeau as someone who is credible. She doesn't believe the knife should have been admitted as evidence. Scientists on this board and PMF have strongly stated their reasons for believing likewise. Therefore I have reason to believe the same. When credible people from both sides of the argument agree on the same thing I have no reason to believe otherwise.

You know, damned well, that the issues I have are far more underlying. Attempting to simply ignore those issues and settle for the "easy way out" is disingenuous at best.

I do not simply fill in the blanks with Amanda/Raffaele. Where have I stated that I have evidence that Amanda/Raffaele took the phones? Rather, I have clearly stated that I believe this to be the case given that Rudy's hands were bloody when he picked up the purse. I find it unlikely that he would dump the purse, then wash his hands, then return to the bedroom all before touching anything that was inside the purse/picking up the phones/etc. I have no evidence for this, I just find it unlikely.

I do note that Holmes has provided a scenario wherein Amanda closes Meredith's door - one that more closely fits the evidence. Rudy did not stop to close the door, there are no footprints showing that he did. And we're supposed to assume that he took the time to lock/close Meredith's door, but not the front door in his wild flight? Again, a bit far-fetched when compared to the alternative of Amanda closing the door, thus leaving a bloody shoe print facing said door.


Attorneys for the Defense and scientists many thousands of miles away do not agree with the knife evidence. However, the forensics scientist who tested the knife believes it likely to be Meredith's DNA. One of the suspects believed so strongly that it was Meredith's DNA that he felt it necessary to come up with multiple scenarios that could explain the findings - including one that was completely implausible (the cooking incident). That is, without a doubt, quite telling when in regards to the knife. To deny this is, again, to be disingenuous. I do have my reservations regarding the knife, however, there has been no solid reason given to suspect the knife evidence is anything but valid.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Fiona, I answered Bob twice. Have a good evening.

No, Bruce, you did not. You attempted to deflect.


Was DNA evidence found in Filomena's room? Yes or no...

 

[Bruce Fischer]

We have all read your posts, Bruce Fisher. You make assertions. They are challenged. You do not answer those challenges. And then you claim you have proved your case and we now all agree with your assertions. It is quite annoying really.

What you really have to do is first to accept that some of us do not think you are correct, and that no amount of saying "actually x happened", or "Y is the truth" does anything to convinced anybody, so long as you keep ignoring bits of evidence that dont suit you. Why should we take your bare word for anything? That is what you are asking us to do. You say you have provided evidence: you haven't. You have provided some photographs, for example, which do not prove what you say they prove. You are entitled to your perception of them, certainy. We are also entitled to look at them and to take account of other evidence such as testimony and to decide that you are wrong. You say things like "nobody with any credibility believes...." but as you say, that is nobody except the judges in the court (who heard all the evidence); the police (who have no reason to "frame" AK or RS); the judges who heard the various applicatons and who presided in court; many people here who came with no preconceptions whatsoever. In short nobody has any credibility unless they agree with you. That is not productive.

I understand you are very committed to your point of view. I understand that you do not seem able to believe that some of us are not committed in the same way: but I really am not. The evidence led me to my conclusion. I am very conscious I have not seen or heard all of the evidence because I am not a party to the proceedings. I am open to any account which explains all the facts. But I am not open to an account which requires a lot of people to be involved in a conspiracy:the discarding of parts of the evidence in order to make it work; and a succession of just so stories which fly in the face of the evidence we do have in favour of increasingly far fetched stories (though MaryH is more guilty of the latter than you are: perhaps because you avoid explaining things like why AK accused an innocent man of murder and why Guede would suddenly turn into a violent murderer and rapist).

Passion does not make you correct, Bruce Fisher. You seem to be quite frustrated that those things which have convinced you do not convince me or others: well that is just the way it goes. I have no axe to grind at all. But you have not made your case.

I wrote off most of what you said. You have said it all before. I do not get frustrated at all on this board. I actually find some of you to be entertaining. I did highlight one of your more ridiculous points.

Why would Guede turn into a violent murdered and rapist?

Really?

You think it is more reasonable for Amanda Knox to become a violent murderer?

That argument is laughable. I had to point that one out.

Rudy Guede was a criminal. A lot more will come out shortly about Rudy Guede.

 

[Mary_H]

Any number of discrepancies which seem to require such contortions of logic and verbiage and coincidence and conspiracy to explain away as innocence are much more easily resolved when viewed as the panicked and ill-considered actions of ... guilty ... young people.

Mary H has made much of her apparent puzzlement that the police might have had early suspicions concerning Knox and Sollecito. The term "intuition" has been bandied about here with a great deal of scorn, and not-so-sly references to the sort of red herrings that the OP tried to pass off are resurrected with depressing frequency, but the fact is that police are actually trained professionals, and observing and judging the behaviors (in the general sense of the term) of people close to a crime is not necessarily "intuition". It is also "experience".

Although the comparison may seem trite (it isn't) any parent is perfectly familiar with the experience of questioning their children and knowing ... with absolute certainty ... that the kids are hiding something, even though their protestations to the contrary are seemingly heartfelt and unequivocal. Certainly there are times when that parent is wrong, but the incidence of error pales by comparison to the number of times they are not.

Cops deal with victims, criminals, witnesses, and other less directly involved actors in real life crime dramas every work day.They are not only trained to judge people, scenes, and surrounding, they are practiced at it.

Many people in addition to the police are trained to judge people, scenes and surroundings. Teachers and judges, as well as many other professionals, have used their training and skills to determine that the arrest, investigation and trial were completely out of line.

As part of my work, for example, I have been trained in the observation of facial expressions. That's why I notice things like the fact that it is extremely difficult to find a photograph of Rudy Guede with a smile on his face.

There is a photograph of Rudy at a party with a famous designer. Rudy stares at the camera, expressionless. There is a photo of Rudy with a beautiful blond woman; he stares at the camera, expressionless. In almost every photo you can find of Rudy, he wears the same expressionless face.

I am not a psychologist, so I can't analyze or decipher the meaning of his expression, but my life experience tells me that this is a person who has learned it is not in his best interest to smile, look happy or reveal emotion at all. Right there, I smell trouble.

On the other hand, we have the spontaneous, expressive Amanda, who obviously has always been allowed to be herself, in a family without the severe punishments that put many children on a track that leads straight to jail. Where in her life is the source of the kind of anger and violence it would take to commit a knife murder?

You are right -- intuition should not be scorned. Your example of what parents can read in their children is true, and it can go both ways. As a person who grew up in the same cultural milieu as Amanda, and as the parent of a child who is about the same age as Amanda, I have crossed paths with many, many children of her generation in Seattle over the years, and my intuition tells me she was not involved in the the crime.

You will say my intuition is not as valid as the police's intuition. The Perugia police, however, are not the Saudi Arabia police, who are not the Singapore police, who are not the Seattle police. Each police system works within its own cultural context.

In Italy, we are talking about a culture in which a mere eleven years ago, it was ruled that a woman wearing jeans could not by legal definition be raped. The ruling was overturned only three years ago. Here is another fact of life in Italy:

"The Court of Cassation, which is staffed mainly by elderly male appeal judges, has issued several controversial judgments on sexual and social mores in the past decade.

"It has, however, been increasingly aware of women's rights, issuing rulings on previously accepted acts of sexual harassment such as bottom pinching." (emphasis mine)

http://www.independent.ie/world-new...reverses-tight-jeans-rape-ruling-1438681.html

In other words, intuition is not pure; it is affected by many other factors.

People who think Amanda and Raffaele committed the crime should take the time to sit down and really, deeply, truly imagine how you would feel in the aftermath, if you were in their place. You have been in school for fifteen years, succeeding, making good grades, never in trouble with your teachers, much less the law. Suddenly you find yourselves covered in blood, in a situation gone terribly, terribly wrong.

What would be "the panicked and ill-considered actions of ... guilty ... young people."?

1.) Fall apart.
2.) Fall apart some more.
>3.) Either call the police and be arrested, or
>3.) Run to Raffaele's and stay there until someone notifies you about the crime. Pretend you know nothing about it.
4.) Immediately (not four days later) get caught by the police, because your lack of experience rendered you completely incapable of covering your traces in any way.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I have prepared a quick-and-dirty fact summary regarding Sample 176, the luminol reaction on the floor of Filomena's room.

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/sample_176.html

 

[Malkmus]

You know, damned well, that the issues I have are far more underlying. Attempting to simply ignore those issues and settle for the "easy way out" is disingenuous at best.

I do not simply fill in the blanks with Amanda/Raffaele. Where have I stated that I have evidence that Amanda/Raffaele took the phones? Rather, I have clearly stated that I believe this to be the case given that Rudy's hands were bloody when he picked up the purse. I find it unlikely that he would dump the purse, then wash his hands, then return to the bedroom all before touching anything that was inside the purse/picking up the phones/etc. I have no evidence for this, I just find it unlikely.

I do note that Holmes has provided a scenario wherein Amanda closes Meredith's door - one that more closely fits the evidence. Rudy did not stop to close the door, there are no footprints showing that he did. And we're supposed to assume that he took the time to lock/close Meredith's door, but not the front door in his wild flight? Again, a bit far-fetched when compared to the alternative of Amanda closing the door, thus leaving a bloody shoe print facing said door.


Attorneys for the Defense and scientists many thousands of miles away do not agree with the knife evidence. However, the forensics scientist who tested the knife believes it likely to be Meredith's DNA. One of the suspects believed so strongly that it was Meredith's DNA that he felt it necessary to come up with multiple scenarios that could explain the findings - including one that was completely implausible (the cooking incident). That is, without a doubt, quite telling when in regards to the knife. To deny this is, again, to be disingenuous. I do have my reservations regarding the knife, however, there has been no solid reason given to suspect the knife evidence is anything but valid.

Thanks for clarifying some of your points. I, in fact, didn't not know "damned well" your underlying issues with the points you made and I apologize if you had previously stated your points about the blood on Rudy's hands in relation to the purse. I try to follow this forum as closely as I can, but do miss things from time to time. That being said, I don't think it changes the responses I had to your questions.

I know your overall point is that Rudy could not have done these things by himself because of the reasons you mention above. But I find it ironic that you question those points based on the unlikelihood of someone washing their hands in a certain order or that the position of footprints could show how whether someone closed a door or not (considering his footprints are outside Meredith's door and we know he was in the bedroom at some point). Ironic because you find those things stranger than the notion that Amanda carried a large knife in her purse for protection, or that Amanda and Rafaelle were boozed/drugged out of their minds that it drove them to murder, yet were up bright and early and coherent enough to do a massive clean-up/break-in staging/staged phone calls to the police after they already arrived/etc... or most of all, that someone murdering/sexually assaulting their roommate was motivated by little else than being high or general roommate rivalry. I think it takes much more mental gymnastics to come up with a plausible scenario for why/how Amanda and Rafaelle killed Meredith than why Rudy's DNA wasn't found in certain areas or how he climbed a wall. Just saying, that's my opinion.

You say that to ignore the fact that Rafaelle "felt it necessary to come up with multiple scenarios that could explain [Meredith's DNA on the knife]" is to be disingenuous. I'm sorry, but I don't think I'm being disingenuous when I say that when someone is confronted with evidence that is at the same time impossible to be real, yet impossible to refute, they would make an excuse up to try and explain it. Like trying to rationalize a paradox. In most people's minds DNA evidence is as irrefutable as being caught on tape. I'm sure Rafaelle was not aware of the phenomenon known as LCN DNA, and took the evidence of Meredith's blood being on his knife as being a fact that was indisputable, and therefore made a juvenile mistake by lying and digging his hole deeper. BTW, are you sure about the "multiple scenarios" part? I only know of the one, in which he pricked Meredith when cooking. The other, the one involving the exchange of bras, I thought was from his father.

Lastly, in regards to the LCN DNA found on the knife. I'd be willing to believe wholeheartedly in it if it weren't, as I said previously, "controversial". Have you ever heard of a judge deciding that a fingerprint match was inadmissible because of the way it was analyzed? If it's a complete match, it's considered 100 percent reliable. DNA isn't so cut and dry, and the way matches are achieved isn't as simple as holding two samples side by side and comparing the lines. Fingerprints aren't malleable. What you find is what you get. DNA, on the other hand, is full of peaks and valleys, the strength of which can be determined by noise ratios and the instrumentation itself.

*[bolded section added by me]

 

[Amazer]

I wrote off most of what you said. You have said it all before. I do not get frustrated at all on this board. I actually find some of you entertaining. I did highlight one of your more ridiculous points.

Why would Guede turn into a violent murdered and rapist?

Really?

You think it is more reasonable for Amanda Knox to become a violent murderer?

That argument is laughable. I had to point that one out.

Besides finger pointing.... care to provide some evidence that Rudy is more likely to turn into a violent murderer and rapist? Something like a study that proves that burglars are x% more likely to turn to raping murderers then just the average non-criminal will do nicely.

Rudy Guede was a criminal. A lot more will come out shortly about Rudy Guede.

Is this going to brought up in the appeal or is this only going to used in the media campaign. If the former then I'm willing to take it in consideration once that information becomes available. If the latter.... don't bother posting it even.

 

[bucketoftea]

Malkmus said

"
You say that to ignore the fact that Rafaelle "felt it necessary to come up with multiple scenarios that could explain [Meredith's DNA on the knife]" is to be disingenuous. I'm sorry, but I don't think I'm being disingenuous when I say that when someone is confronted with evidence that is at the same time impossible to be real, yet impossible to refute, they would make an excuse up to try and explain it. Like trying to rationalize a paradox."

I see that when something seems impossible, but there is evidence it happened, it is natural to puzzle about it to find (in your mind) explanations for it, A total lie would not be helpful to your own understanding nevermind what you would say out loud to the police. This really doesn't ,make sense.

 

[Mary_H]

Malkmus said

"
You say that to ignore the fact that Rafaelle "felt it necessary to come up with multiple scenarios that could explain [Meredith's DNA on the knife]" is to be disingenuous. I'm sorry, but I don't think I'm being disingenuous when I say that when someone is confronted with evidence that is at the same time impossible to be real, yet impossible to refute, they would make an excuse up to try and explain it. Like trying to rationalize a paradox."

I see that when something seems impossible, but there is evidence it happened, it is natural to puzzle about it to find (in your mind) explanations for it, A total lie would not be helpful to your own understanding nevermind what you would say out loud to the police. This really doesn't ,make sense.

I don't think he said it out loud to the police; he wrote it in a letter to his father, which the police seized. The fact that he felt he needed to find an explanation for it suggests only that it did not occur to him that the police could be lying. He tried to find a way to rationalize what they had found. If you read the rest of the letters you can see that he was in an extremely confused and emotionally upset state.

 

[Malkmus]

Malkmus said

"
You say that to ignore the fact that Rafaelle "felt it necessary to come up with multiple scenarios that could explain [Meredith's DNA on the knife]" is to be disingenuous. I'm sorry, but I don't think I'm being disingenuous when I say that when someone is confronted with evidence that is at the same time impossible to be real, yet impossible to refute, they would make an excuse up to try and explain it. Like trying to rationalize a paradox."

I see that when something seems impossible, but there is evidence it happened, it is natural to puzzle about it to find (in your mind) explanations for it, A total lie would not be helpful to your own understanding nevermind what you would say out loud to the police. This really doesn't ,make sense.

The quote about him cooking with Meredith was written in his diary and he never took the stand - so as far as I know he didn't say this to the police or anyone of authority. So I don't think this was this ever used against him - again, AFAIK, so I could be wrong. Just something to bear in mind.

 

[Humanzee]

to make up something that didnt happen at all wouldn't be helpful at all unless you were looking for an excuse, would it?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Thanks for clarifying some of your points. I, in fact, didn't not know "damned well" your underlying issues with the points you made and I apologize if you had previously stated your points about the blood on Rudy's hands in relation to the purse. I try to follow this forum as closely as I can, but do miss things from time to time. That being said, I don't think it changes the responses I had to your questions.

I know your overall point is that Rudy could not have done these things by himself because of the reasons you mention above. But I find it ironic that you question those points based on the unlikelihood of someone washing their hands in a certain order or that the position of footprints could show how whether someone closed a door or not (considering his footprints are outside Meredith's door and we know he was in the bedroom at some point). Ironic because you find those things stranger than the notion that Amanda carried a large knife in her purse for protection, or that Amanda and Rafaelle were boozed/drugged out of their minds that it drove them to murder, yet were up bright and early and coherent enough to do a massive clean-up/break-in staging/staged phone calls to the police after they already arrived/etc... or most of all, that someone murdering/sexually assaulting their roommate was motivated by little else than being high or general roommate rivalry. I think it takes much more mental gymnastics to come up with a plausible scenario for why/how Amanda and Rafaelle killed Meredith than why Rudy's DNA wasn't found in certain areas or how he climbed a wall. Just saying, that's my opinion.

You say that to ignore the fact that Rafaelle "felt it necessary to come up with multiple scenarios that could explain [Meredith's DNA on the knife]" is to be disingenuous. I'm sorry, but I don't think I'm being disingenuous when I say that when someone is confronted with evidence that is at the same time impossible to be real, yet impossible to refute, they would make an excuse up to try and explain it. Like trying to rationalize a paradox. In most people's minds DNA evidence is as irrefutable as being caught on tape. I'm sure Rafaelle was not aware of the phenomenon known as LCN DNA, and took the evidence of Meredith's blood being on his knife as being a fact that was indisputable, and therefore made a juvenile mistake by lying and digging his hole deeper. BTW, are you sure about the "multiple scenarios" part? I only know of the one, in which he pricked Meredith when cooking. The other, the one involving the exchange of bras, I thought was from his father.

Lastly, in regards to the LCN DNA found on the knife. I'd be willing to believe wholeheartedly in it if it weren't, as I said previously, "controversial". Have you ever heard of a judge deciding that a fingerprint match was inadmissible because of the way it was analyzed? If it's a complete match, it's considered 100 percent reliable. DNA isn't so cut and dry, and the way matches are achieved isn't as simple as holding two samples side by side and comparing the lines. Fingerprints aren't malleable. What you find is what you get. DNA, on the other hand, is full of peaks and valleys, the strength of which can be determined by noise ratios and the instrumentation itself.

*[bolded section added by me]

Apparently you still haven't bothered to read this thread, nor even the past few hundred posts I've made herein where I've stated my theory regarding the murder/how it went down.

Your points would be salient, if I believed what you erroneously have me pegged as believing.

I do not believe Amanda carried the knife for protection. I do not believe this was a cold-blooded murder. I do believe it was a sexual game/rape gone horribly wrong. I do believe Amanda, Raffaele, and Rudy were involved - and what's more, there's plenty of evidence backing this belief.

Raffaele was not simply attempting to posit plausible scenarios. "Amanda gave the knife to the killer" is a plausible scenario, and one that very well fits what you claim he was attempting to do - reconcile the evidence. However, making up a complete lie that could never have happened is not something most people would do when faced with incontrovertible evidence.

Think of it like this: You find the last cookie missing from the cookie jar. You mention to this child that you have noticed the last cookie missing from the jar and found a trail of crumbs. The child then says "well, some aliens came and took the cookie". Is there any reason to suspect the child was merely speculating how the cookie disappeared from the jar? No. Because it's not a plausible scenario. It becomes even more suspicious when the child then offers another speculative means for the disappearance of said cookie: "sibling-x might have taken it while I was napping."

Edit: We cannot accept the first excuse, and in fact, it tends to point toward the child being the guilty culprit. If he/she was not guilty, why would he/she feel the need to push the blame off/explain away the evidence?

To argue that Raffaele was doing nothing more than speculating is absolutely disingenuous. For being such a self-acclaimed astute observer of human behavior, you should know this.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I don't think he said it out loud to the police; he wrote it in a letter to his father, which the police seized. The fact that he felt he needed to find an explanation for it suggests only that it did not occur to him that the police could be lying. He tried to find a way to rationalize what they had found. If you read the rest of the letters you can see that he was in an extremely confused and emotionally upset state.

It was not simple rationalization.

Rationalization/speculation:

"I think Amanda might have slipped out while I was asleep and given my knife to the killer."



Lying through the teeth to cover one's tracks:

"I pricked Meredith while we were cooking."



The first is plausible. It could have, and likely actually did, happen. The second is not, in any way, a plausible explanation for how Meredith's DNA arrived on the knife. We know this because, well, they never, ever cooked together. We know the first explanation is plausible because we have multiple points in Raffaele's diary where he muses where Amanda had gone that night, as well as points where he claims she asked him to lie about her whereabouts.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Fulcanelli, do you think the postals arrived to the cottage before Raffaele called the police?

Yes. What now?

 

[Fulcanelli]

That nothing was stolen supports that the burglary was interrupted.

It has the opposite affect on the staged breakin theory. If someone was going to stage a break in they would 'steal' something to make it look good

Interrupted how many times exactly? Let's count...once in Filomena's room, once in Laura's room, once on the toilet, once right after Meredith's murder...4 interruptions in the lonely isolated house. The interruption thing can only work once, not 4 times.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Actually Rudy took the credit cards, cash and phones. He removed the duvet off of the bed and covered Meredith. He placed the bloody knife on the bed leaving the imprint, he then went through Meredith's purse taking the credit cards, cash and phones. Then he walked out the front door leaving shoe prints, set in Meredith's blood.

Except the evidence clearly proves this to be false. We've been over this.

Do you see discussions like this and many other discussions about this case that are occurring elsewhere happening with other cases where people have already been convicted? Not many right? This is because this case was not handled correctly. many people know this and are speaking out.

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have been wrongly convicted.

No Bruce. It's happening not because there are serious questions in regard to her involvement, but because a bunch of dirty foreigners dared to convict a blue eyed all American middle class girl of murder in their country.

I would imagine that Rudy closed and locked the door.

Only his footprints prove for a fact that he didn't.

You keep talking about the glass outside the cottage. Look at the window. Look at the glass on the sill and inside the room. How much more glass do you expect to come from that portion that was broken? Where are the photographs showing the lack of glass on the ground outside? I know you think they thoroughly investigated the ground outside. I am sure a through investigation would include photographs.

We aren't claiming that there should be 'more' glass, but that glass should not have all landed neatly along the edge of the sill like that and that some of it should have fallen to the ground below when the window was broken and some should also have fallen to the ground when anyone tried to gain entry through that space.