• 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.
Fulcanelli said:
But there is when you work from the total assumption that the lab got everything right when it came to Rudy and everything wrong when it came to Amanda and Raffaele.
Click to expand...


Both Charlie and Kevin conceded that the lab may have made mistakes when it came to the evidence against Rudy, so that "assumption" is no longer in play here.

It doesn't harm their argument, though -- the lab had a lot of evidence of Rudy to work with, whereas it only had one piece each from Amanda and Raffaele. One mistake on Rudy may represent 5% of his data, whereas one mistake on Raffaele represents 100% of his data.
 
Fulcanelli said:
And I showed that argument to be without weight, as I demonstrated that they 'needed' those spots of blood to be there.
Click to expand...

I think my post was directed at Fine; I wasn't aware you had argued that, as well. But anyway, to me, the argument that they deliberately left the spots of blood there falls into the category of beliefs that Amanda and Raffaele were these brilliant masterminds who tried to get away with the perfect murder by exercising all sorts of forethought about how the police would react. That just doesn't correspond with the fact that Amanda falsely accused a man against whom she knew there would no evidence.
 
Mary_H said:
Both Charlie and Kevin conceded that the lab may have made mistakes when it came to the evidence against Rudy, so that "assumption" is no longer in play here.

It doesn't harm their argument, though -- the lab had a lot of evidence of Rudy to work with, whereas it only had one piece each from Amanda and Raffaele. One mistake on Rudy may represent 5% of his data, whereas one mistake on Raffaele represents 100% of his data.
Click to expand...

Only the lab didn't make any mistakes with Rudy, did it?

If the lab had 'so much' evidence of Rudy, is it therefore not far more logical that if the knife was contaminated it would have been contaminated with Rudy's DNA? All that DNA of his 'floating' around the lab and yet not even the slightest speck got on it? The lab must have been doing something right then ;)
 
Mary_H said:
I think my post was directed at Fine; I wasn't aware you had argued that, as well. But anyway, to me, the argument that they deliberately left the spots of blood there falls into the category of beliefs that Amanda and Raffaele were these brilliant masterminds who tried to get away with the perfect murder by exercising all sorts of forethought about how the police would react. That just doesn't correspond with the fact that Amanda falsely accused a man against whom she knew there would no evidence.
Click to expand...



It was only a bad move in retrospect (from her perspective). She didn't know making the false accusation was a crime. Neither did she know her mere presence in the cottage while 'Patrick murdered Meredith' would also be considered a crime. She thought the police would thank her and let her go home and then when Patrick was found to be innocent she'd bat her eyelids and waffle on about how confused she was and that she was terribly sorry and the police would just give her a pat on the behind and tell her not to do it again. She certainly didn't dream that it would result in her becoming a prime suspect.
 
Fulcanelli said:
Only the lab didn't make any mistakes with Rudy, did it?
Click to expand...

How would we know?

If the lab had 'so much' evidence of Rudy, is it therefore not far more logical that if the knife was contaminated it would have been contaminated with Rudy's DNA? All that DNA of his 'floating' around the lab and yet not even the slightest speck got on it? The lab must have been doing something right then ;)[/QUOTE]

I have never argued that anything was accidentally contaminated in the lab. I think the DNA evidence on the bra clasp and the knife were deliberately falsified.

There would be no reason to test the knife in the same vicinity or at the same time as Rudy's evidence; they are completely different kinds of evidence. I would the lab would be at least that careful.
 
Mary_H said:
So you can't cite it. Then maybe you shouldn't have claimed it.
Click to expand...


Why don't you read the conclusion at the end of Massei's Report? I'll give you a hint...the part where he describes Amanda going into the Conad store on the morning of the 2nd and then heading to the cottage and then performing a partial clean-up of the scene.
 
Fulcanelli said:
It was only a bad move in retrospect (from her perspective). She didn't know making the false accusation was a crime. Neither did she know her mere presence in the cottage while 'Patrick murdered Meredith' would also be considered a crime. She thought the police would thank her and let her go home and then when Patrick was found to be innocent she'd bat her eyelids and waffle on about how confused she was and that she was terribly sorry and the police would just give her a pat on the behind and tell her not to do it again. She certainly didn't dream that it would result in her becoming a prime suspect.
Click to expand...


Let's see, she's smart enough to leave specific spots of blood in the bathroom, and to clean up all her own and Raffaele's DNA but not Rudy's, but she's not smart enough to know that accusing the wrong man would put her in a world of hurt.

If she committed the crime, then she would have every reason to fear she WOULD become a prime suspect, and that nobody would pat her on the head and let her go.
 
Fulcanelli said:
Why don't you read the conclusion at the end of Massei's Report? I'll give you a hint...the part where he describes Amanda going into the Conad store on the morning of the 2nd and then heading to the cottage and then performing a partial clean-up of the scene.
Click to expand...

How odd that you still won't provide an excerpt, or even a link. You must not feel very strongly about getting this information disseminated.
 
Mary_H said:
How would we know?

If the lab had 'so much' evidence of Rudy, is it therefore not far more logical that if the knife was contaminated it would have been contaminated with Rudy's DNA? All that DNA of his 'floating' around the lab and yet not even the slightest speck got on it? The lab must have been doing something right then ;)
Click to expand...

I have never argued that anything was accidentally contaminated in the lab. I think the DNA evidence on the bra clasp and the knife were deliberately falsified.

There would be no reason to test the knife in the same vicinity or at the same time as Rudy's evidence; they are completely different kinds of evidence. I would the lab would be at least that careful.[/QUOTE]

Well, unless you 'know', you can't state it can you?

Right, they'd have been careful not to test the knife in the vicinity of Rudy's samples...but careful not to test it in the vicinity of Meredith's? That makes 'perfect' sense...not.

Deliberately falsified? I see absolutely no logic (not to mention no evidence) to support this claim. Why, oh why...if they were going to falsify the evidence, would the put Meredith's DNA on the blade of a volume SO low on the blade the machine could hardly read it and there was not enough to retest? WHY would they not have put a high volume of Amanda's DNA also on the clasp? WHY not place Raffaele's DNA in some of luminol prints? If that's your idea of a falsifying evidence...
 
Last edited:
Mary_H said:
Let's see, she's smart enough to leave specific spots of blood in the bathroom, and to clean up all her own and Raffaele's DNA but not Rudy's, but she's not smart enough to know that accusing the wrong man would put her in a world of hurt.

If she committed the crime, then she would have every reason to fear she WOULD become a prime suspect, and that nobody would pat her on the head and let her go.
Click to expand...

Except she didn't clean up all her own DNA. You are also assuming Raffaele would have left DNA to clean...why would he?

Why would she clean up Rudy's mess? The goal wasn't to hide the fact there'd been a murder, they could never do that....it was merely to cover up their own involvement in it. But as it happens, none of Rudy's DNA was in the bathroom...so either it was never in there in the first place, or, it had been cleaned up by Amanda...so which do your prefer?


What exactly was this 'every reason' she had to fear becoming a prime suspect by accusing Patrick?
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
I know I'm reneging on my commitment never to correspond with you again, but I just needed to point out how readily - and civilly - you acquiesced on this point once a mod had posted a view in a personal capacity. How very interesting. I think many of us can draw our own conclusions.
Click to expand...

LashL is an attorney. She is not very well acquainted with this case, though, and did not know that the body was locked inside the victim's room in a rental accommodation.

Her example was that of a manhunt for a child rapist/murderer. I take it easy on people who aren't acquainted with the distinctions between this garden-variety murder by three young bored adults and the dragnet for a child murderer.
 
Mary_H said:
Not really. As Charlie suggested a while back, Patrick might still be in prison if he hadn't had an alibi. The prosecution literally had to go away from the crime scene to find evidence to pin on Amanda, and it took them six weeks to find evidence to pin on Raffaele. There is no doubt they could have found something to use on Patrick, too.
Click to expand...


Not if no evidence was found against him. You don't convict someone without actual evidence, so what would have been the evidence in Patrick's trial in order to keep him in jail?


It took them far shorter time then that...you forget the knife from the kitchen.

They would have found nothing to use on Patrick...since he was not involved in the murder and had never been to the cottage.
 
Last edited:
Matthew Best said:
And what did the audit reports into the Rome lab say? Nobody else has been able to even state that there has ever been one, so it's good to hear from you that the lab has actually been audited.
Click to expand...

You're welcome.

All Halides1 has to do now is get someone who knows Italian to request any details about it from whomever performs audits for the Polizia Scientifica. This would likely be something the defence teams have already done as they did in most of the cases that he has posted.
 
Fulcanelli said:
Well, unless you 'know', you can't state it can you?
Click to expand...

I didn't state it. Speaking hypothetically, I wrote: "One mistake on Rudy may represent 5% of his data, whereas one mistake on Raffaele represents 100% of his data."

To which you responded, "Only the lab didn't make any mistakes with Rudy, did it?"

I then asked you how we would know whether they made mistakes, and you set up yet another Straw Man, as is your habit.

Deliberately falsified? I see absolutely no logic (not to mention no evidence) to support this claim. Why, oh why...if they were going to falsify the evidence, would the put Meredith's DNA on the blade of a volume SO low on the blade the machine could hardly read it and there was not enough to retest? WHY would they not have put a high volume of Amanda's DNA also on the clasp? WHY not place Raffaele's DNA in some of luminol prints? If that's your idea of a falsifying evidence...
Click to expand...

"Finding" Meredith's DNA on the blade of the knife was the first piece of falsified evidence. I actually think Patrizia Stefanoni may have had mixed feelings about it, but eventually realized she had no choice, so forced the results. I sincerely doubt Stefanoni or Mignini thought anyone would question the results, so they didn't feel they had to be terribly brilliant about the whole thing. Anyway, "running out" of sample -- another obvious contrivance -- assured that nobody would be able to double-check the results.

By the time they falsified the bra clasp, they had a lot more at stake -- the kids had now been in prison for six weeks. It was time to be blatantly corrupt. They managed to find "copious" amounts of Raffaele's DNA, which might not be suspicious if we didn't know they had access to copious amounts of DNA by virtue of the fact that Raffaele was in prison.

I suppose they could have availed themselves of copious amounts of Amanda's DNA, too, and placed it somewhere, but since they hadn't thought of it soon enough, maybe they didn't want to push their luck. Even the prosecution seems to have had some limits to what they thought was acceptable vs. what was ridiculous.

RE: the luminol prints -- any investigations at the cottage were more public than the investigations in the lab.
 
Last edited:
Mary_H said:
And there, my friends, we have the Straw Man of the day.
Click to expand...

It's truly, truly unbelievable. If it's conspiracy nuttiness to suggest that there's willful and concerted misrepresentation of other posters' arguments by people who we HAVE to assume are not borderline simpletons, then I raise my hand: I AM A CONSPIRACY NUTTER. Point me towards the conspiracy threads or send me directly for psychiatric evaluation.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
I would say that if all else was equal that would be equally possible, sure. I don't think all else was equal in this case but I've got no objection in principle to the idea that one, or even more than one, of the tests that implicated Rudy were falsified or botched... were you going somewhere with this?
Click to expand...

Why don't you think all else was equal? What special treatment did RG get that AK and RS did not? The only thing I can think of is the "fast-track" option which he elected upon the advice of his lawyers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom