• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bruce Fisher said:
Fulcanelli wrote: "Amanda and Raffaele's trial lasted over 11 months...their appeal will last only 5 days"

Please explain your comment.
Click to expand...


What's to explain...there's nothing I can say further to clarify then what's in that sentence. The first degree lasted 11 months. The appeal will be heard in court for 5 days.
 
Fulcanelli said:
Michael needs to provide documentation to show, just for example, that Rudy did not leave his hair, saliva, sweat, blood and fluids in Meredith's room? Or that it is the prosecution's contention that Raffaele cut off Meredith's bra clasp, not that he picked it up off of her bedroom floor?

This is the point...that list of over 40 elements is not a list of anything esoteric, but rather things that are common knowledge to everyone who has followed this case above and beyond the superficial or a mere casual glance.
Click to expand...

Fulcanelli, what you did was take a couple of mistakes and you turned them into over 40 items. Steve did make a couple of mistakes. This was a telephone interview and a few of his answers were rushed to fit into the time allotted.

You made many more mistakes in your list than Steve made in his interview. I don't blame you, you are not an expert.

Steve will be doing more interviews. Details will be clarified.

Every time someone throws a list together, we cannot be expected to have to refute everything in the list. Writing lists that require no proof is easy. By the time we refuted your list, you would just write another one.

Why waste time with your games?
 
Bruce Fusher said:
Fulcanelli, what you did was take a couple of mistakes and you turned them into over 40 items. Steve did make a couple of mistakes. This was a telephone interview and a few of his answers were rushed to fit into the time allotted.
Click to expand...

Bruce...come on! These are basic facts he got wrong...one might get a mental block in remembering certain things in an interview, but one doesn't end up substituting correct facts for completely incorrect ones. And he was hardly rushed...the interviewer gave him plenty of time to respond and make his points with little or no interruption and asked no hard questions. It wasn't because he was being interviewed that he got the basic facts wrong, it was because he didn't know them to begin with.

Bruce Fisher said:
You made many more mistakes in your list than Steve made in his interview. I don't blame you, you are not an expert.
Click to expand...

Why then, don't you put up a list of those that are incorrect and match them with a list of your corrections...then we can all see?

Brice Fisher said:
Steve will be doing more interviews. Details will be clarified.
Click to expand...

Then he's a bugger for punishment.

And you're going to let him? Do you think that wise?

Bruce Fisher said:
Every time someone throws a list together, we cannot be expected to have to refute everything in the list. Writing lists that require no proof is easy. By the time we refuted your list, you would just write another one.
Click to expand...

That's a cop out Bruce.
 
Fulcanelli wrote: "And you're going to let him? Do you think that wise?"

I am very happy that Steve will be doing more interviews. I look forward to them. Why would you think that I have any say in what Steve Moore does?
 
Bruce Fisher said:
Fulcanelli wrote: "And you're going to let him? Do you think that wise?"

I am very happy that Steve will be doing more interviews. I look forward to them. Why would you think that I have any say in what Steve Moore does?
Click to expand...

It's your funeral. I wish you and him luck.
 
RoseMontague said:
This is thing about Steve Moore's articles I don't like. He makes too many absolute statements using words like always and impossible. I appreciate the man's service to my country and I have no doubt he is an expert. Experts are not always right when they use terms like impossible. I stop taking people seriously when they throw words like those around.

Bruce, perhaps you might want to talk to him about that.
Click to expand...

The sentence would have been better received had he used the word "usually" rather than "always," "The simplest answers are usually the right answers."

Moore is an expert in his particular field who is biased towards the side of innocence in this case. That may be where some of his absolutes come into play. I don't fault him for being biased, is anyone who is involved or read about this case not biased?

While I like reading what the particular experts have to say about this case their involvement is many times removed because they weren't at trial listening to the various experts' arguments and presentations. I am much interested in an expert's opinion who testified for either side at trial. I don't discount experts who were not there but rather use what they have written or said as a complement or refutation of what was presented at trial.
 
christianahannah said:
The sentence would have been better received had he used the word "usually" rather than "always," "The simplest answers are usually the right answers."

Moore is an expert in his particular field who is biased towards the side of innocence in this case. That may be where some of his absolutes come into play. I don't fault him for being biased, is anyone who is involved or read about this case not biased?

While I like reading what the particular experts have to say about this case their involvement is many times removed because they weren't at trial listening to the various experts' arguments and presentations. I am much interested in an expert's opinion who testified for either side at trial. I don't discount experts who were not there but rather use what they have written or said as a complement or refutation of what was presented at trial.
Click to expand...

That is a fair position to take. I agree.
 
Fulcanelli said:
The documents in full, complete with court seals? Or a redacted version?

Why don't you post it up Bruce...PMF can render a translation in parallel, can probably do it much faster too. What do you say?
Click to expand...

I will see if Charlie has them available for posting. We are eager for everyone to view the information.
 
Fine said:
I know it's been suggested that the "mystery substance' is none other than water found in the bathroom shower, possibly contaminated with rust or cleaning agents. But that don't make no sense. If true, wouldn't there also be Luminol-revealed bare footprints in the bathroom too?
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but doesn't that argument apply equally to someone who tracks blood around? Shouldn't the luminol traces form a trail, like Guede's shoe prints?

Meredith's DNA was not found in any of the bare footprints revealed with luminol in the corridor. Why not? If luminol destroys DNA, why was DNA found in some of the luminol prints/stains, and why would the authorities (who are supposed to know about this) test only for DNA instead of performing a second test to confirm the presence of blood?
 
Fulcanelli said:
What's to explain...there's nothing I can say further to clarify then what's in that sentence. The first degree lasted 11 months. The appeal will be heard in court for 5 days.
Click to expand...

Fulcanelli, you are completely wrong about the appeal. The truth is we don't know how long the appeal will take because we don't know what will be accepted and what will be rejected.

The judge could dismiss the case entirely or the case could last just as long as the first trial. We will all have to wait and see.
 
Oh Bruce...one other question...

Who was it who obtained the Mignini report for the FOA...was it CBS, ABC or Mario Spezi?
 
luminol and its effects on DNA and other tests

“A major advantage of the luminol test is the lack of significant damage to the genetic material, especially when modern PCR techniques are employed to analyze microsatellite DNA. Only moderate adverse effects have been noted over the years when other DNA testing procedures or serological markers were commonly used for identification purposes.”

Barni, et al., “Forensic application of the luminol reaction as a presumptive test for latent blood detection” Talanta 72 (2007) 896–913.
 
Fulcanelli said:
I'm just curious :)
Click to expand...

I'm curious to hear more detail about this statement:

The family closed Amanda's friends down in Seattle. One of the Admins on PMF knows one of them personally and they were left afraid for their safety were they to speak to the press. They never have.

From everything I know, Amanda's family consists of law-abiding people who do not cause problems or bother anyone. I have gotten to know them well over the past two years, I have a strongly positive opinion of them, and if someone is spreading these kinds of rumors, I would like to know the details.
 
halides1 said:
“A major advantage of the luminol test is the lack of significant damage to the genetic material, especially when modern PCR techniques are employed to analyze microsatellite DNA. Only moderate adverse effects have been noted over the years when other DNA testing procedures or serological markers were commonly used for identification purposes.”

Barni, et al., “Forensic application of the luminol reaction as a presumptive test for latent blood detection” Talanta 72 (2007) 896–913.
Click to expand...

Can you explain how this would benefit or not benefit what was done at the crime scene with regards to luminol and the time frame it was used?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom