Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Charlie Wilkes said:
For anyone interested in the door to Meredith's room, here are all the pictures I have:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/meredith_door01.jpg
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/meredith_door02.jpg
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/meredith_door03.jpg
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/meredith_door04.jpg
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/meredith_door05.jpg
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/meredith_door06.jpg
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/meredith_door07.jpg
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/meredith_door08.jpg
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/meredith_door09.jpg
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/meredith_door10.jpg
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/meredith_door11.jpg
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/meredith_door12.jpg
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/meredith_door13.jpg
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/meredith_door14.jpg
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/meredith_door15.jpg
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting this.

With all the possible varieties of locks, the actual pictures help.
 
Fulcanneli wrote "Just as I'd said...luminol was the final test applied. So, thankfully we can all finally lay the claims of 'bleach' causing the luminol reaction to bed, since bleach is non-persistent and dissipates in 48 hours...can't we?"

Expert opinion from veteran FBI Agent Steve Moore; "Regarding the potential of Amanda's footprints in bleach; household cleaners that contain bleach degrade at a much slower rate than pure hypochlorate (chlorine bleach). So they likely would be detectable for months."
 
Last edited:
Bruce Fisher said:
Fulcanneli wrote "Just as I'd said...luminol was the final test applied. So, thankfully we can all finally lay the claims of 'bleach' causing the luminol reaction to bed, since bleach is non-persistent and dissipates in 48 hours...can't we?"

Expert opinion from veteran FBI Agent Steve Moore; "Regarding the potential of Amanda's footprints in bleach; household cleaners that contain bleach degrade at a much slower rate than pure hypochlorate (chlorine bleach). So they likely would be detectable for months."
Click to expand...

What are the chances they're going to be arguing this on appeal? It sounds like a non-starter. Any examples of cases where this approach worked?
 
Bruce, while your here, whats your take on this Rudy locking the door and the footprints shown in luninal, because if he didn't lock that door, I think I know who did.
 
stilicho said:
What are the chances they're going to be arguing this on appeal? It sounds like a non-starter. Any examples of cases where this approach worked?
Click to expand...

My post was in response to Fulcanelli stating that bleach dissipates in 48 hours. I am not sure what your post is suggesting.

What approach?
 
Bruce Fisher said:
I would rather discuss the fact that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent.

You should read this;

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/FBI6.html
Click to expand...

Ok. Then support your position with evidence, not just bare assertion. As of yet, you have added no new evidence that exonerates Amanda and Raffaele. Nor have you been successful in casting doubt on the evidence that was used to convict the duo.

Simply standing up and claiming that they're innocent carries no weight here. None. Likewise, claiming that contamination could have happened means little when no means for that contamination has been presented. The same goes for your claims regarding the fake break-in, footprints, interviews/interrogations, etc.
 
Bruce, did Rudy lock the door when he left?

Why did he lock it?

How could he have locked it given his foot prints revealed with luninal leaving Meredith room and straight out the front door?

And finally, if he did lock it for whatever reason, why didn't he bother to lock the front door as well?
 
BobTheDonkey said:
Ok. Then support your position with evidence, not just bare assertion. As of yet, you have added no new evidence that exonerates Amanda and Raffaele. Nor have you been successful in casting doubt on the evidence that was used to convict the duo.

Simply standing up and claiming that they're innocent carries no weight here. None. Likewise, claiming that contamination could have happened means little when no means for that contamination has been presented. The same goes for your claims regarding the fake break-in, footprints, interviews/interrogations, etc.
Click to expand...

Read the article that I posted.

Rudy could call you on the phone and tell you that he acted alone and you would still come here the next day and argue. You have no interest in the truth.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
Read the article that I posted.

Rudy could call you on the phone and tell you that he acted alone and you would still come here the next day and argue. You have no interest in the truth.
Click to expand...

I would indeed argue that Rudy didn't act alone based on the evidence as found at the scene.

That you have no interest in actually backing up your bare assertions speaks volumes for you and your side of the argument, Bruce.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
Bruce, did Rudy lock the door when he left?

Why did he lock it?

How could he have locked it given his foot prints revealed with luninal leaving Meredith room and straight out the front door?

And finally, if he did lock it for whatever reason, why didn't he bother to lock the front door as well?
Click to expand...

Rudy's footprints were not revealed with luminol. His shoe prints were visible, set in Meredith's blood.

These questions have no bearing on who committed this murder. Any answers would be speculation but I will be happy to speculate for you.

Rudy possibly locked the door to try and hide the horrible act that he just committed. He covered Meredith with the duvet also. Most likely for the same reason.

As far as the front door goes, your guess is as good as mine.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
Rudy's footprints were not revealed with luminol. His shoe prints were visible, set in Meredith's blood.

These questions have no bearing on who committed this murder. Any answers would be speculation but I will be happy to speculate for you.

Rudy possibly locked the door to try and hide the horrible act that he just committed. He covered Meredith with the duvet also. Most likely for the same reason.

As far as the front door goes, your guess is as good as mine.
Click to expand...

But, Bruce, the shoeprints from Rudy don't show him locking the door. Could you please explain that?

While you're at it, I believe there's still an unanswered question from last night - was there DNA evidence in Filomena's room?
 
Bruce Fisher said:
Rudy's footprints were not revealed with luminol. His shoe prints were visible, set in Meredith's blood.
Click to expand...

A lot of people stood in the hallway in front of Meredith's door and in the doorway of her room. How were they able to differentiate these footprints from Rudy's when they tested that area?
 
Bruce Fisher said:
I answered your question about Filomena's room. So did Charlie.

Put the pacifier back in your mouth and look at your mobile and I will tell you again.

There was a faint trace of Amanda's DNA found in Filomena's room. It is inconclusive because there are other unidentified markers. They also neglected to test anywhere else on the floor or test for the other two roommates.

What if they found Filomena's DNA mixed with Amanda's in Amanda's room?

That would have shown that residual DNA can mix. But we will never know because no additional testing was done.
Click to expand...
PLease, knock off the ad-hom attacks. They're not needed.

I'm not looking for your interpretation of the results, Bruce. But thank you for finally responding that, yes, indeed, you lied when you stated:

Bruce Fisher said:
Some things are inconclusive. The footprint on the bathmat is inconclusive. There was a lack of DNA from anyone in Filomena's room. This means nothing at all.
Click to expand...

That was your response to this:
BobTheDonkey said:
In addition to my last post: You've been unable to prove that Rudy was ever in Filomena's room and that the footprint in the bathroom is Rudy's.
Click to expand...
Would you care to readdress the lack of evidence for Rudy's presence in Filomena's room?


Now, on to this about the door:

The shoeprints do not show Rudy pausing in his stride, nor turning to lock the door. Do you have evidence that Rudy locked the door, or is this pure assertion (again)?
 
Rudy's footprints were visible but they were small traces of blood. They were from the heel of his shoe. Not every single print was found. Many people walked around on that floor before the investigation. there is one print that Charlie found on the video that was never tagged. They were incompetent in there investigation. It is no surprise that they might have missed a blood trace or two.

The guilters want every possible question answered to prove innocence. It doesn't work that way. Some things will never be known for sure. You need to prove guilt. If you put the same expectations that the guilters have about answers to questions into any courtroom trial, no one would ever be convicted and no one would ever be exonerated. Trials would go on forever.
 
Does anyone have any literature that says luminol is a conclusive test for blood? Golly, I can't seem to find a single scientific article saying that. I've been looking at several articles and they all say it's a preliminary test.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
Rudy's footprints were visible but they were small traces of blood. They were from the heel of his shoe. Not every single print was found. Many people walked around on that floor before the investigation. there is one print that Charlie found on the video that was never tagged. They were incompetent in there investigation. It is no surprise that they might have missed a blood trace or two.

The guilters want every possible question answered to prove innocence. It doesn't work that way. Some things will never be known for sure. You need to prove guilt. If you put the same expectations that the guilters have about answers to questions into any courtroom trial, no one would ever be convicted and no one would ever be exonerated. Trials would go on forever.
Click to expand...
I would argue that, at this point, the evidence has been proven. It is you who must now argue that the evidence points to something else happening.

There is no evidence of Rudy locking the door, therefore, we cannot assume that he did just because it fits the story you want it to fit. Rather, we look at other evidence (notably, Amanda's footprint facing the door) and gauge which is more likely - that Rudy stopped, locked the door, and then fled without his footprints showing as much, or that Amanda locked the door at a later time, as shown by her footprint/shoeprint facing the door.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
Rudy's footprints were visible but they were small traces of blood. They were from the heel of his shoe. Not every single print was found. Many people walked around on that floor before the investigation. there is one print that Charlie found on the video that was never tagged. They were incompetent in there investigation. It is no surprise that they might have missed a blood trace or two.
Click to expand...

It seems clear that there were lots of footprints in the space in front of Meredith's bedroom door that were all jumbled up with one another and were then scrubbed away by the police before testing was done. If Rudy actually left a footprint or two there, they were long gone by the time the testing was done. Once again, no proof that Rudy did not lock the door.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom