Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Bruce Fischer]

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)?[/QUOTE

Do you have evidence that Amanda or Raffaele locked the door?

No, you don't.

There is abundant proof that Rudy was in the murder room. He is the only one other than Meredith that was there.

It is reasonable to say that he locked the door.

 

[Mary_H]

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.

This is the same approach that says Amanda was there because she can't prove she wasn't there. That's why so many people call this a witch hunt -- because a witch can't prove she's not a witch.

 

[Amazer]

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.

I hope you are not serious that the police scrubbed away all the foot prints before the testing was done. If you are serious, then I ask you to provide some evidence to support that claim.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

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.

The luminol prints were never proven to belong to Amanda. The luminol prints were never proven to have anything at all to do with this crime.

They didn't even bother to check the feet of the other women living in the house.

I look at the prints that are set in Meredith's blood and they lead me to Meredith's killer.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

I hope you are not serious that the police scrubbed away all the foot prints before the testing was done. If you are serious, then I ask you to provide some evidence to support that claim.

Yes, that is exactly what happened. The prints in the hall were completely scrubbed away by the investigators. This is a known fact. They photographed the shoe prints set in Meredith's blood and scrubbed them off the floor.

I watched the entire video and witnessed this for myself.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Bob the Donkey writes:

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.

Something else besides what? Judge Massei says Rudy assaulted Meredith while Amanda and Raffaele were engaged in foreplay in the next room. They were stoned on hashish, so they made the "choice of evil" and interrupted their foreplay to help Rudy rape and kill Meredith.

Is that what has been proven?

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.

But why is there only one footprint? Where are the others? Are we sure this footprint was made with blood? Why didn't it reveal any trace of DNA?

We know Guede's shoe prints are connected to the crime. They were made with visible blood, and they led from Meredith's room to the exit. That is not in doubt.

But what real evidence shows that the luminol footprint outside Meredith's door was in any way connected to the crime? What about the ones outside Amanda's door, the two right footprints, one of which Rinaldi says was made by Raffaele? These footprints didn't reveal any DNA either. Is there any real reason to think they are connected to the crime - or is it just that the prosecutor needed evidence? What about the luminol footprint inside Amanda's room? Was that made with blood? Was it connected to the crime? If so, what is the proof?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Bob the Donkey writes:

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.

Something else besides what? Judge Massei says Rudy assaulted Meredith while Amanda and Raffaele were engaged in foreplay in the next room. They were stoned on hashish, so they made the "choice of evil" and interrupted their foreplay to help Rudy rape and kill Meredith.

Is that what has been proven?

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.

But why is there only one footprint? Where are the others? Are we sure this footprint was made with blood? Why didn't it reveal any trace of DNA?

We know Guede's shoe prints are connected to the crime. They were made with visible blood, and they led from Meredith's room to the exit. That is not in doubt.

But what real evidence shows that the luminol footprint outside Meredith's door was in any way connected to the crime? What about the ones outside Amanda's door, the two right footprints, one of which Rinaldi says was made by Raffaele? These footprints didn't reveal any DNA either. Is there any real reason to think they are connected to the crime - or is it just that the prosecutor needed evidence? What about the luminol footprint inside Amanda's room? Was that made with blood? Was it connected to the crime? If so, what is the proof?

So, in other words, you don't actually have any proof that Rudy stopped to lock the door. This is, in fact, bare assertion (again).

Actually, as a point, the fact that Rudy's shoeprints lack a distinct point where he stopped to turn and lock the door indicates it was, most likely, someone else. Do you have any evidence that Rudy locked the door?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

By the way, everyone, I am thinking about what to post and make available in terms of photos and video. I would like your input as to how much you want to see, and how much you think it is appropriate.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

This is the same approach that says Amanda was there because she can't prove she wasn't there. That's why so many people call this a witch hunt -- because a witch can't prove she's not a witch.

Actually, that approach is:

There is evidence that Amanda was present in the cottage at the time of Meredith's murder - most notably, multiple points where Amanda's DNA was mixed with Meredith's blood.

Given that Amanda has no credible alibi (she doesn't) and that DNA evidence, along with circumstantial such as the faked break-in (why would a burglar fake a break-in?), places her at the scene of the crime (or at least very likely to have been there), there is plenty of reason to believe Amanda was involved.

This is not a witch hunt. In fact, it would be very easy for Amanda to have proven she was not at the cottage when the murder happened and that she and Raffaele were in fact at his apartment. However, that did not occur.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Bob the Donkey writes:

So, in other words, you don't actually have any proof that Rudy stopped to lock the door. This is, in fact, bare assertion (again).

No, of course not. But the door was found locked, I think Rudy acted alone, and there is no evidence to suggest he did not lock the door.

 

[Mary_H]

By the way, everyone, I am thinking about what to post and make available in terms of photos and video. I would like your input as to how much you want to see, and how much you think it is appropriate.

Well, I just saw a video on YouTube that unexpectedly showed details of Meredith's body the day she was found. Out of respect for the victim, I think if people want to see photos or video of her, they should look for them on their own.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Bob the Donkey writes:

So, in other words, you don't actually have any proof that Rudy stopped to lock the door. This is, in fact, bare assertion (again).

No, of course not. But the door was found locked, I think Rudy acted alone, and there is no evidence to suggest he did not lock the door.

I have already stated the evidence suggesting he did not lock the door. Notably, the lack of a pause or even side-by-side shoeprints in front of Meredith's room. Rather, his shoeprints showed a stride directly out the door, down the hall, and exiting the cottage.

There is reason to believe Rudy did not act alone. The evidence for this has not been properly refuted, thus it is again apparent that you are not here searching for the truth, but rather limiting yourself to that evidence that suits the scenario you wish to believe. There is a name for this fallacy: Confirmation Bias

It would serve you well, Charlie, to drop this fallacy and approach the evidence with a critical, open mind.

 

[Amazer]

By the way, everyone, I am thinking about what to post and make available in terms of photos and video. I would like your input as to how much you want to see, and how much you think it is appropriate.

I'd be careful posting pictures of Meredith's body and or pictures that are 'too bloody'.

While I can personally stomach pictures like that we have to keep in mind that those pictures/videos can be disturbing for others. Perhaps, if you feel that such pictures can further the discussion that you post them in NSFW tags?

 

[Mary_H]

Actually, that approach is:

There is evidence that Amanda was present in the cottage at the time of Meredith's murder - most notably, multiple points where Amanda's DNA was mixed with Meredith's blood.

None in the murder room, however. No reasonable court would accept a resident's DNA as evidence of a crime.

Given that Amanda has no credible alibi (she doesn't) and that DNA evidence, along with circumstantial such as the faked break-in (why would a burglar fake a break-in?), places her at the scene of the crime (or at least very likely to have been there), there is plenty of reason to believe Amanda was involved.

This is not a witch hunt. In fact, it would be very easy for Amanda to have proven she was not at the cottage when the murder happened and that she and Raffaele were in fact at his apartment. However, that did not occur.

Correction: After three days, the police chose to stop believing Amanda and Raffaele when they said they were together at his apartment. Based on no evidence, they interrogated the pair and arrested them on the basis of what they were able to persuade them to say at the interrogations.

This is a much more realistic scenario than the ones the guilters build their fantasies out of.

P.S. Amanda does not have to prove she was not at the cottage. The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she committed the crime.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Mary H. writes:

Well, I just saw a video on YouTube that unexpectedly showed details of Meredith's body the day she was found. Out of respect for the victim, I think if people want to see photos or video of her, they should look for them on their own.

I wouldn't post images of Meredith's body.

 

[Mary_H]

I have already stated the evidence suggesting he did not lock the door. Notably, the lack of a pause or even side-by-side shoeprints in front of Meredith's room. Rather, his shoeprints showed a stride directly out the door, down the hall, and exiting the cottage.

There is reason to believe Rudy did not act alone. The evidence for this has not been properly refuted, thus it is again apparent that you are not here searching for the truth, but rather limiting yourself to that evidence that suits the scenario you wish to believe. There is a name for this fallacy: Confirmation Bias

It would serve you well, Charlie, to drop this fallacy and approach the evidence with a critical, open mind.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't really recall anyone coming on here and asserting that Rudy locked the door. Didn't the discussion begin because Fulcanelli claimed the evidence showed Rudy did NOT lock the door? Are you trying to respond to an argument that nobody made?

It has already been explained that footprints in front of Meredith's door, including any Rudy might have left, had been cleaned up. Not to mention the FACT that Rudy could have locked the door without standing in front of it.

 

[Mary_H]

Mary H. writes:

Well, I just saw a video on YouTube that unexpectedly showed details of Meredith's body the day she was found. Out of respect for the victim, I think if people want to see photos or video of her, they should look for them on their own.

I wouldn't post images of Meredith's body.

Cool.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Actually, that approach is:

There is evidence that Amanda was present in the cottage at the time of Meredith's murder - most notably, multiple points where Amanda's DNA was mixed with Meredith's blood.
Given that Amanda has no credible alibi (she doesn't) and that DNA evidence, along with circumstantial such as the faked break-in (why would a burglar fake a break-in?), places her at the scene of the crime (or at least very likely to have been there), there is plenty of reason to believe Amanda was involved.

This is not a witch hunt. In fact, it would be very easy for Amanda to have proven she was not at the cottage when the murder happened and that she and Raffaele were in fact at his apartment. However, that did not occur.

The mixed DNA that you mention simply proves that Amanda lived at the cottage. Nothing more.

How exactly do two people home alone for the evening prove that they were home alone?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Cool.

That video should be reported to YouTube and removed.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I'm not clear on how that door works, which is one reason I posted the pictures. Would it be necessary to stand outside the door and turn the key, or could you turn the key and remove it from the lock on the inside and then pull the door shut behind you?