Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fulcanelli]

I watched the crime scene videos and I watched the investigators wandering all around the cottage. So I know for a fact that Steve Moore is correct.

So did Massei and he concluded Dr Stefanoni's testimony on the matter was correct. I suggest you watch the video again.

How did that investigator get outside? It is a very logical question. I am not claiming any conspiracy. I watched the video. I know the investigators wandered around the cottage. I am simply posting a photo. Everyone can look at it and make up their own minds.

He got outside by stepping out the door you see behind him. Next.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

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.

I never flag anyone on this thread. It isn't important to me. I do not get angry from personal attacks. I can handle myself without crying to the moderators.

Your post makes no sense. We are all well aware that I believe that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent.

It would go without saying that I agree with the experts that believe in their innocence.

Experts testified for the prosecution and the defense. Are you asking me to believe all of them?

That would be a really tough position for anyone to take wouldn't it?

Steve Moore has access to information that you and I do not. He is an expert with many years of experience. I trust his knowledge and expertise.

 

[Fulcanelli]

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.

What did they need backup for? They waited for Filomena to arrive and ask her if she had an explanation.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I never flag anyone on this thread. It isn't important to me. I do not get angry from personal attacks. I can handle myself without crying to the moderators.

Your post makes no sense. We are all well aware that I believe that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent.

It would go without saying that I agree with the experts that believe in their innocence.

Experts testify for the prosecution and the defense. Are you asking me to believe all of them?

That would be a really tough position for anyone to take wouldn't it?

Steve Moore has access to information that you and I do not. He is an expert with many years of experience. I trust his knowledge and expertise.

So, again, you prefer to trust the expertise of someone without firsthand access to the evidence than the expertise of the person who performed the testing? Even after your preferred expert's knowledge of the case has been shown to be wrong, while the person who performed the testing has yet to be shown wrong?

Seems like that belongs in one of the 9/11 threads to me, but ok.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

So did Massei and he concluded Dr Stefanoni's testimony on the matter was correct. I suggest you watch the video again.



He got outside by stepping out the door you see behind him. Next.

Would you like to reaffirm your belief that the investigators did not walk from room to room without changing shoe covers?

Do I need to remind you that I believe that Amanda and Raffaele have been wrongly convicted? I obviously disagree with Massei.

 

[Fulcanelli]

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

Obviously Mary they didn't have evidence against them before they questioned them or they would have been under arrest earlier. As soon as the police had evidence, they were arrested, as all police tend to do. I don't see the foul here, perhaps you could explain?

 

[Fulcanelli]

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.

I have corrected my post.

Moore may be an expert. But he is no expert on this case. One needs to know the facts of a case to be an expert on it.

 

[christianahannah]

Would you like to reaffirm your belief that the investigators did not walk from room to room without changing shoe covers?

Do I need to remind you that I believe that Amanda and Raffaele have been wrongly convicted? I obviously disagree with Massei.

Bruce, what is the date and time frame the video was taken?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Would you like to reaffirm your belief that the investigators did not walk from room to room without changing shoe covers?

Do I need to remind you that I believe that Amanda and Raffaele have been wrongly convicted? I obviously disagree with Massei.

But why do you disagree with Massei? Not just your opinion that Amanda/Raffaele are innocent, but an evidence based conclusion. What is in Massei's report, exactly, that you disagree with?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

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.

You are confusing information with expertise. Steve Moore doesn't care about the case trivia, and he doesn't need to understand it. He cares about the information that enables him to determine what happened, which in this case is the crime scene video, the crime scene photos, and a high-level summary of the physical evidence.

This particular crime scene is not hard to read compared with many or even most similar crimes. It's a criminology 101 exercise in terms of the forensics. But it's a post-doctoral course in human folly, and, with all due respect and admiration, you are one of the case studies.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

So, again, you prefer to trust the expertise of someone without firsthand access to the evidence than the expertise of the person who performed the testing? Even after your preferred expert's knowledge of the case has been shown to be wrong, while the person who performed the testing has yet to be shown wrong? Seems like that belongs in one of the 9/11 threads to me, but ok.

Once again, you accept everything posted at PMF as fact. No need to verify.

The person that performed the testing has been proven wrong.

So your current theme is conspiracy theories. Did you get a memo? Stilicho brought that up today also. You have your marching orders. That is clear.

 

[Fulcanelli]

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.

Tell you what then Bruce...why don't you post the list up here and then write your own list beneath laying out which of those things he's actually right about.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Bruce, what is the date and time frame the video was taken?

The videos are from 11-2 and 12-18

The time and dates are on the videos.

 

[christianahannah]

You are confusing information with expertise. Steve Moore doesn't care about the case trivia, and he doesn't need to understand it. He cares about the information that enables him to determine what happened, which in this case is the crime scene video, the crime scene photos, and a high-level summary of the physical evidence.

This particular crime scene is not hard to read compared with many or even most similar crimes. It's a criminology 101 exercise in terms of the forensics. But it's a post-doctoral course in human folly, and, with all due respect and admiration, you are one of the case studies.

Charlie, during the trial did Amanda's and Raffaele's defense attorneys challenge the prosecution's forensic DNA evidence and handling of that evidence vigorously? Did they use the videos and photos that you and Bruce have written about on this forum?

 

[Fulcanelli]

You are confusing information with expertise. Steve Moore doesn't care about the case trivia, and he doesn't need to understand it. He cares about the information that enables him to determine what happened, which in this case is the crime scene video, the crime scene photos, and a high-level summary of the physical evidence.

This particular crime scene is not hard to read compared with many or even most similar crimes. It's a criminology 101 exercise in terms of the forensics. But it's a post-doctoral course in human folly, and, with all due respect and admiration, you are one of the case studies.

The FACTS and the EVIDENCE of the case are not trivia! Especially when he bases his conclusions on all those facts and items of evidence that he got wrong! Those 43 things he got wrong? He used those on the radio show to argue his case!

 

[Bruce Fischer]

But why do you disagree with Massei? Not just your opinion that Amanda/Raffaele are innocent, but an evidence based conclusion. What is in Massei's report, exactly, that you disagree with?

Bob,

you just love to go in circles. I have been on this thread for some time now discussing all of these points. I have also put together a website with the help of many others that is loaded with information.

 

[Fulcanelli]

The person that performed the testing has been proven wrong.

Not according to the Massei Report.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Once again, you accept everything posted at PMF as fact. No need to verify.

The person that performed the testing has been proven wrong.

So your current theme is conspiracy theories. Did you get a memo? Stilicho brought that up today also. You have your marching orders. That is clear.

No, I don't. But this isn't about what I believe, it's about what you choose to believe, Bruce. You stated that you believe experts, I replied that you only believe experts who agree with your side - and interestingly enough, those experts don't have the full case file, nor do they have firsthand knowledge of the case. In fact, you deny that the experts who do have full access to the evidence are correct. And this is done without evidence that your chosen experts are correct.


Do you have evidence that Stefanoni was wrong in her assessment of the evidence?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Bob,

you just love to go in circles. I have been on this thread for some time now discussing all of these points. I have also put together a website with the help of many others that is loaded with information.

Oh, so you have Massei's report translated?

Would you mind posting it then?

 

[Mary_H]

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...

Oh, I didn't do it because I needed to, Bob.

Actually, I believe we were talking about the footprints in Raffaele's house, weren't we, as in when Fulcanelli wrote: "It can safely stated to be blood, since bleach can be ruled out...since Raffaele's cleaner never used bleach." (Although the discussion applies to the cottage as well.)

Charlie wrote: "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."

Fulcanelli wrote: "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."

I guess Fulcanelli wants people to believe that any argument stating that luminol reacts with other things is a ridiculous argument because luminol reacts with turnips and most people are not likely to have turnips on the bottom of their feet.

The fact is, luminol reacts with cyanides, and turnips (or rather, horderadish) contains Allyl isothiocyanate. Also, "Cyanides are produced by certain bacteria, fungi, and algae and are found in a number of foods and plants."

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

Don't you think it is possible that anyone's shoes could carry, as Charlie and I said before, dirt containing trace minerals that react with luminol, animal waste or "certain bacteria, fungi and algae?"

As you see above, Fulcanelli asked for a list of candidate substances that react with luminol and when I offered him one, he rejected it out of hand and refused to talk about it anymore. Not much of a sparring partner, he.

As for the cottage not showing up shoeprints all over the place, well, we know some areas of the floor were washed, some areas of the floor were not tested, and all areas of the floor were not sprayed with luminol until six weeks after the crime. I don't know why they even bothered, except that they didn't have any other evidence.