Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Dan O.]

You'd call the police if you came home, the front door was open, nobody was home, you lived in an area strewn with discarded syringes, and there was blood in the washbasin. The only person on earth who wouldn't have done this was Amanda Knox and/or the murderer.

She has a fully documented alibi email dated 04 NOV 2007 to explain to you and her Outlook spam list why she didn't phone the police. She knew she'd have to explain why she didn't immediately call them.

Were you convinced?

Have you forgotten already that the postal police saw the same scene that Amanda saw. Did they jump into action and call for backup? No, they were worried about who would pay for the damage if they broke down the door to Meredith's room.

PS: Your use of the terms "alibi" and "spam" are totally inappropriate for the context in which they were used.

 

[Mary_H]

Raffaele and Amanda gave them the evidence. Or have you forgotten already?

Yes, I do seem to have forgotten any evidence from before the interrogations. Refresh my memory, won't you?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Amazer wrote: "Let's face it, Steve made a mess of that interview with 40 uncontested errors. That either makes him less of an expert then you believe him to be, or he really hasn't applied himself. Which ever it is, it does nothing to bolster your case for Amanda's innocence."

Who says he made 40 errors? PMF said he made those errors. I cannot help you if you believe everything you read on PMF. You stated in an earlier post that you fully accept the post showing 40 plus errors as a fact. You require no proof from PMF. They are the authority on this case in your mind.

You have the right to that opinion.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Fulcanelli writes:

Incorrect. As Judge Massei made clear in his report, the sensitivity of the blood test is not able to detect blood below a certain level. It therefore cannot say the material on the knife for certain is not blood, only with certainty that there is no blood above a certain level. He also points out that almost all the material on the knife was removed to test for DNA leaving none to be tested for blood. Therefore, all that can be said with certainty is that no blood was detected on the knife, not that the origin of Merediths was certainly not from blood.

I trust Libby Johnson over Massei. Massei is a cog in the system, but he is not without a conscience. It couldn't be more clear if he had titled his report, "Please overturn this verdict."

"It was for casual reasons, they didn't have any ill will against Meredith, but they did a couple of bong hits and made the Choice Of Evil."

That's my translation of his argument. I'm waiting patiently for a better one.

It can safely stated to be blood, since bleach can be ruled out...since Raffaele's cleaner never used bleach.

Many things besides bleach and blood react with luminol. It could be a different cleaning product, dirty hands, dirty feet, or all of the above.

Nobody's saying he's deliberately attempting to mislead. It is being argued and has been shown, that he is simply ignorant of the facts of the case.

It's a complicated case with a lot of details. But he understands what happened.

That's your problem. Johnson isn't qualified, Massei is. That's for the simple reason he has heard all of the experts and cross examined them and seen all of the evidence, Johnson has not.

Many things react with luminol? I note you don't list 'what' those things are...and I don't blame you...since everyone woyld be able to see how ridiculous it would be to argue the possibility of any of those things being on the soles of someone's feet.Just to give everyone one example of what these things are: Turnips.

Can you offer up a single one of those 'other things' that react with luminol up as a 'plausible' candidate for the luminol prints? I await your candidate substance with interest.

As for Steve Moore...he has no understanding at all of what happened. How can someone who argues that the prosecution's contention is that Rudy cut the clasp off the bra and Raffaele's DNA got on it because he went and picked up able to be classed as someone with the first clue of what happened?? The man's invented evidence that doesn't exist (Rudy's fluids, sweat, hair and blood in the bedroom) as well as multiplied what he did leave into 'dozens'. And these are only TWO things off a list of 43 from just a single interview of his. Get real!

 

[Mary_H]

Why is blood (I'm assuming you mean menstual) in the bathroom much more common today than in 1990 or 1980? I live with two other women, one is 21.

I'm referring to the blood in the bathroom.

I don't know exactly why it is more common today than it was previously, but I have seen more blood in bathrooms in the last ten years than I ever saw in my lifetime before that.

Vibrators and condoms are much more common, as well.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Amanda's explanation is that she thought the blood on the faucet was from an infected ear piercing, but she ruled that out when she saw the blood on the mat because it was too much. Since the blood on the faucet turned out to be Amanda's (not a mixed DNA sample, BTW) and the blood on the mat turned out to be Meredith's, I would say Amanda may have been right with her first guess.

Amanda also testified on the stand the blood on the tap was not there the afternoon. And since it was old (dry) neither was it deposited that late morning. Therefore, it can only be concluded it was deposited the night of the murder.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Either/or. With it being in the bathroom (and apparently only there) I might've thought menstrual blood more likely. Especially since it being on the faucet would imply someone with blood on their hands using the running water to wash it off, rather than someone with a bloody nose. In fact yes, I think my first impulse would be to think menstrual blood.

Nice try. Amanda herself in her testimony ruled it out as being menstrual blood. Her words were...she thought someone had had an 'accident' and not cleaned up afterwards.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Fulcanelli wrote: "As for Bruce Fisher"

I think you meant to say Steve Moore. Unlike yourself, I do not pretend to be an expert. I rely on experts like Steve Moore to provide me with information. Please do not insult Steve Moore by calling him Bruce Fisher.

 

[Fulcanelli]

And Filomena. IIRC, although she knew everything Amanda had found, she didn't tell her to call the police till she heard about the break-in. Didn't bother calling Meredith, either.

Why would she, Filomena hadn't seen it...only Amanda had seen it?

 

[Mary_H]

That's your problem. Johnson isn't qualified, Massei is. That's for the simple reason he has heard all of the experts and cross examined them and seen all of the evidence, Johnson has not.

Many things react with luminol? I note you don't list 'what' those things are...and I don't blame you...since everyone woyld be able to see how ridiculous it would be to argue the possibility of any of those things being on the soles of someone's feet.Just to give everyone one example of what these things are: Turnips.

Can you offer up a single one of those 'other things' that react with luminol up as a 'plausible' candidate for the luminol prints? I await your candidate substance with interest.

As for Bruce Fisher...he has no understanding at all of what happened. How can someone who argues that the prosecution's contention is that Rudy cut the clasp off the bra and Raffaele's DNA got on it because he went and picked up able to be classed as someone with the first clue of what happened?? The man's invented evidence that doesn't exist (Rudy's fluids, sweat, hair and blood in the bedroom) as well as multiplied what he did leave into 'dozens'. And these are only TWO things off a list of 43 from just a single interview of his. Get real!

Drawbacks
Luminol has some drawbacks that may limit its use in a crime scene investigation:

Luminol chemiluminescence can also be triggered by copper or copper-containing alloys, horseradish, and certain bleaches[citation needed]; and, as a result, if a crime scene is thoroughly cleaned with a bleach solution[specify], residual bleach will cause the entire crime scene to produce the typical blue glow, effectively camouflaging any organic evidence, such as blood.

Luminol will also detect the small amounts of blood present in urine, and it can be distorted if animal blood is present in the room that is being tested.

Luminol reacts with fecal matter, causing the same glow as if it were blood.

Luminol's presence may prevent other tests from being performed on a piece of evidence. However, it has been shown that DNA can be successfully extracted from samples treated with luminol reagent.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminol


Luminol doesn't react with turnips simply because they're turnips, genius. It reacts with turnips because turnips contain some of the chemicals that luminol reacts with.

Luminol also detects iron; anybody's shoe print from off the street could have dirt in it containing iron, copper, any of the chemicals detected by luminol, and animal urine or feces, as well.

 

[Mary_H]

fulcanelli wrote: "as for bruce fisher"

i think you meant to say steve moore. Unlike yourself, i do not pretend to be an expert. I rely on experts like steve moore to provide me with information. Please do not insult steve moore by calling him bruce fisher.

LOL!

 

[Fulcanelli]

So just to be clear, it was never proven that there was any blood on the knife. It was also never proven that any blood was found in Raffaele's apartment.

Charlie stated those points very clearly.

Fulcanelli,

You think it is safe to say something is blood even though no tests confirm blood? Is that the standard you have given to all evidence presented in this case? You don't think it's bleach so it must be blood?

You state that no blood was detected on the knife. We agree there.

You are not qualified to attack Steve Moore's professional opinion of this murder. I will dismiss your comments about Steve without debate.

To be clear, blood cannot be ruled out. Had it of been blood, the blood test would not have detected it it since it had all been removed from the knife to test for DNA. There was no material left for a blood test. I am not arguing that it was blood. I am arguing that it cannot be asserted as a pure fact that the material on the knife was not blood. I made that clear in my earlier post on the matter.

I am qualified to attack Steve Moore's knowledge of the facts of this case, as my knowledge of them is far greater then his...as is that of almost everyone here.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Fulcanelli wrote: "As for Bruce Fisher"

I think you meant to say Steve Moore. Unlike yourself, I do not pretend to be an expert. I rely on experts like Steve more to provide me with information. Please do not insult Steve Moore by calling him Bruce Fisher.

Reliance on only the experts without firsthand information who agree that Amanda is innocent. If you rely on experts, Bruce, why don't you rely on Stefanoni who tested the samples (at least, in part)? Or on Massei who has access to the entire case file? Etc.

If you want to flag this for a "personal attack", I will remind you that you brought up your reliance on experts. I am merely pointing out that you rely on only those experts whose opinions you agree with. Hardly scientific.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Luminol reacts with fecal matter, causing the same glow as if it were blood.

So, you are arguing that a plausible candidate for the luminol footprints was 'crap'?

 

[Mary_H]

So, you are arguing that a plausible candidate for the luminol footprints was 'crap'?

Absolutely.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Thanks, Bruce. That shoe print surely proves beyond doubt that Amanda's DNA was tracked there from another source, rather than left there by her directly (or alternatively, that it was left there at some earlier point and then stepped on by the shoe-wearer, who then transferred it into Filomena's room).

No it doesn't. An equally plausible explanation is that Amanda stepped on Tidy's print with her bare feet. The are a few other explanations too.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Absolutely.

Don't expect us to take you seriously then.

 

[Mary_H]

Don't expect us to take you seriously then.

What else is new?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

...snip...
Luminol doesn't react with turnips simply because they're turnips, genius. It reacts with turnips because turnips contain some of the chemicals that luminol reacts with.
...snip...

No need for the personal attack, Mary.

Regardless of why the Luminol reacts with turnips, Fulcanelli was correct in that it does react to turnips.

Are you attempting to assert that there was enough iron in the dirt outside the cottage for only some footprints to have been left? Because if you're attempting to attribute the luminol results to dirty shoes, there is a conspicuously large area of the cottage floor that didn't return shoeprints...

 

[Fulcanelli]

But the shoe print was in the corridor, wasn't it...? Since her DNA profile was stronger there, but very faint in Filomena's room, it seems quite logical that the shoe-wearer transferred DNA from one to the other (fainter in the second mark).

It isn't logical at all. Your argument completely ignores the fact that Rudy's prints go straight down the corridor and out the front door, They don't lead into Filomena's room.