Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Amazer]

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.

I don't see your side doing much in the way of refuting that list of 44 errors.

That leads me to believe that the list of errors is mostly correct. If it weren't you would have explained to us by now why those errors aren't really errors.

 

[christianahannah]

Mary_H said:

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.

Why was there a six-week wait to luminol the flat?

 

[Mary_H]

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

LOL! Amanda ran the interrogation and Filomena ran the investigation! I don't know what the Perugian police ever did before they had all these college girls helping them out.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

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.

I thought the knife and DNA sample results were manufactured within the first week of Amanda's incarceration, and the bra clasp was to be collected and attributed to Raffaele? Why would they therefore feel they didn't have enough evidence and use luminol to create more?

 

[Fulcanelli]

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?"

And your argument is irrelevant, since a) there are no luminol prints entering the front door and going through the kitchen area, so the substance clearly originated from inside the cottage rather then from outside and b) all the luminol footprints are barefoot.

 

[Mary_H]

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?

On May 22, 2010 (at least in Seattle), Fulcanelli, King of the Guilters, wrote:

"Obviously Mary they didn't have evidence against them before they questioned them or they would have been under arrest earlier."

'nuff said. Thank you.

 

[Fulcanelli]

LOL! Amanda ran the interrogation and Filomena ran the investigation! I don't know what the Perugian police ever did before they had all these college girls helping them out.

Filomena wasn't a college girl dear. She was a 29 year old woman that worked for a living, for a legal firm.

 

[christianahannah]

And your argument is irrelevant, since a) there are no luminol prints entering the front door and going through the kitchen area, so the substance clearly originated from inside the cottage rather then from outside and b) all the luminol footprints are barefoot.

What is the print in Filomena's room? A shoeprint or footprint (barefoot)?

 

[Fulcanelli]

What is the print in Filomena's room? A shoeprint or footprint (barefoot)?

It's a small area of blood, which is either not a footprint (and was therefore dropped on the floor or smeared there with something), or it's a footprint that's simply too damaged or faint to be recognisable as a footprint.

 

[Mary_H]

Why was there a six-week wait to luminol the flat?

Good question, christianahannah. Maybe Fulcanelli or Bob can answer it.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

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?

Yes, they tore the DNA evidence apart. The DNA results that are most useful to the prosecution's case are precisely the ones that present the most serious problems in terms of quality and reliability.

 

[Fulcanelli]

On May 22, 2010 (at least in Seattle), Fulcanelli, King of the Guilters, wrote:

Great, your major victory is to establish what we've all been saying from the very beginning: Amanda and Raffaele were arrested once there was evidence against them. Well done.

 

[Mary_H]

I thought the knife and DNA sample results were manufactured within the first week of Amanda's incarceration, and the bra clasp was to be collected and attributed to Raffaele? Why would they therefore feel they didn't have enough evidence and use luminol to create more?

I think the luminol was done before the bra clasp. They were probably hoping to find some of Raffaele's footprints and when they didn't, they went back for the bra clasp.

Give them credit for recognizing the flimsiness of the knife evidence.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Yes, they tore the DNA evidence apart. The DNA results that are most useful to the prosecution's case are precisely the ones that present the most serious problems in terms of quality and reliability.

They 'tried' to tear it apart. And failed abysmally.

Judge Massei is very meticulous about including all of the defence arguments in his report...he then demolishes them.

 

[Mary_H]

And your argument is irrelevant, since a) there are no luminol prints entering the front door and going through the kitchen area, so the substance clearly originated from inside the cottage rather then from outside and b) all the luminol footprints are barefoot.

You and Charlie were, I believe, talking about the footprints in Raffaele's house.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

I think the luminol was done before the bra clasp. They were probably hoping to find some of Raffaele's footprints and when they didn't, they went back for the bra clasp.

Give them credit for recognizing the flimsiness of the knife evidence.

Confirm with Charlie but I believe all of the luminol testing and the clasp collection both occurred on 12-18

 

[stilicho]

Stilicho, where were you yelling CT/nutjob/charlatan/liar when a certain someone was posting the ludicrous conclusion that the luminol at Raffaele's flat had to be blood? (I love where this theory goes. AK and RS are bloody all over their clothes, and then bounce around the floors and walls at Raffaele's house. Do you like this theory?)

We'll go with the conclusions of the forensic scientists on this one.

Furthermore, "just asking questions" is not a bad thing. You may dismiss it, maybe because it sounds catchy, or you've simply accepted as fact that. Questions can be more relevant than answers. Have you ever heard of the Socratic method before? Who made up this just asking questions rule? Or do you have an alternative rule of "never ask questions, just accept"?

That's not the same thing as posting a random image and musing about flying. If that officer did something wrong then explain what it was and include dates, times, and documentation. Ask as many questions as you wish but also provide all the context necessary to arrive at an answer.

 

[Fulcanelli]

You and Charlie were, I believe, talking about the footprints in Raffaele's house.

Actually, 'I' was talking about the cottage. But I don't see why my argument wouldn't also apply to Raffaele's. One would expect to see luminol revealed shoe prints walking in through Raffaele's front door if the substance that reacted with the luminol had been tracked in on someone's shoes...no?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

It's a small area of blood, which is either not a footprint (and was therefore dropped on the floor or smeared there with something), or it's a footprint that's simply too damaged or faint to be recognisable as a footprint.

Where is the proof that this is blood?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Why was there a six-week wait to luminol the flat?

I think it is almost always one of the last things they do when they process a crime scene.