Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

Hello LondonJohn
I've enjoyed reading your posts.
6th December 2009 is the last time the OP has posted in this thread is all I'm sayin'.

Ahh I see! Sorry for my misinterpretation!!

 

[Mary_H]

Nobody argued they cleaned Meredith's bedroom.

I need to make an appointment with the eye doctor. I must be seeing things.

 

[Mary_H]

Thanks, that was entertaining. It proves Rudy didn't lock the door since his prints don't resemble anything like the way or the places you stood.

PS: Mary H will be very upset with you for that. She was adamant that he locked it with his back to the door, rather then facing it.

Cite?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Thanks, that was entertaining. It proves Rudy didn't lock the door since his prints don't resemble anything like the way or the places you stood.

You are incorrect. Please tell me where I am wrong with regard to the shoe print on the floor. It is a left shoe print from the front of Rudy's left shoe.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Apart from that footprint of Amanda's facing Meredith's door (combined with the fact they were the only ones who had reason to do do).

Pleas give me a logical explanation of how Amanda could have put that one footprint in front of the door? Do you think she hopped all over the cottage and only put her foot covered in blood on the floor one time to lock the door? Are you suggesting that scenario?

That print is an undated stain. It was most likely made from a wet foot coming out of the shower. It is almost a complete print. If that print was from blood, the entire foot would have had to be covered in blood. If that was the case, there would have been a lot of prints discovered from that foot. Unless of course you think Amanda hopped around the cottage.

You state that Amanda and Raffaele DID NOT clean up in Meredith's room. With your theory, if the prints discovered with luminal are blood, then Amanda and Raffeele both hopped out of the murder room. This is not logical.

There is no proof that the luminol print outside the door belongs to Amanda. There is no proof the luminol print was made in blood. The print is not dated.

 

[stilicho]

And others (myself included) are less concerned with whether or not Knox/Sollecito "did it", but instead argue that there might not have been enough credible evidence to convict them of the crime.

The courts, the science, the witnesses, and the thousands of pages of fully cross-examined evidence have proved your concern to be unfounded. You may now sleep safely in knowing that these vicious killers are properly incarcerated.

 

[GrouchoMarxist]

Apart from that footprint of Amanda's facing Meredith's door (combined with the fact they were the only ones who had reason to do do).

Who needs a reason?
*$^)$# happens.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Pleas give me a logical explanation of how Amanda could have put that one footprint in front of the door? Do you think she hopped all over the cottage and only put her foot covered in blood on the floor one time to lock the door? Are you suggesting that scenario?

That print is an undated stain. It was most likely made from a wet foot coming out of the shower. It is almost a complete print. If that print was from blood, the entire foot would have had to be covered in blood. If that was the case, there would have been a lot of prints discovered from that foot. Unless of course you think Amanda hopped around the cottage.

You state that Amanda and Raffaele DID NOT clean up in Meredith's room. With your theory, if the prints discovered with luminal are blood, then Amanda and Raffeele both hopped out of the murder room. This is not logical.

There is no proof that the luminol print outside the door belongs to Amanda. There is no proof the luminol print was made in blood. The print is not dated.

So when did Rudy walk through the hallway with his shoe/sock off?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

So when did Rudy walk through the hallway with his shoe/sock off?

Who said Rudy walked through the hall in his bare feet? You are completely changing the subject because Fulcanelli has been backed into a corner. He stated that no clean up occurred in Meredith's room. He also believes that the luminol prints are set in blood. For both of these to be true, Amanda and Raffaele would have had to hop out of Meredith's room. We all know that is not a logical theory.

There is no proof that the luminol stains are blood. It is highly unlikely that anyone's bare foot could have been covered in that much blood to make almost complete footprints without tracking around a lot more blood. Those luminol prints were most likely made with a wet foot coming out of the shower. These prints are not dated. The bleach that is found in bathroom cleaners would be detectable for months with luminol.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Who said Rudy walked through the hall in his bare feet? You are completely changing the subject because Fulcanelli has been backed into a corner. He stated that no clean up occurred in Meredith's room. He also believes that the luminol prints are set in blood. For both of these to be true, Amanda and Raffaele would have had to hop out of Meredith's room. We all know that is not a logical theory.

There is no proof that the luminol stains are blood. It is highly unlikely that anyone's bare foot could have been covered in that much blood to make almost complete footprints without tracking around a lot more blood. Those luminol prints were most likely made with a wet foot coming out of the shower. These prints are not dated. The bleach that is found in bathroom cleaners would be detectable for months with luminol.

Have you not made the claim that at least one of the bare footprints in the hallway belongs to Rudy, and not Raffaele as proposed by the Prosecution? (footprints 2, and/or 3, on your website, if I'm not mistaken)

How is it any less logical to believe Amanda/Raffaele hopped out of the room than it is to believe that Rudy did the same (how did Rudy get to the bathroom again?).

I don't recall where Fulcanelli claimed Meredith's room was addressed during the clean-up, so I do not think you have him "in the corner" quite the way you think you do. Would you mind finding the post where he did, in fact, make this claim? I would greatly appreciate it.

 

[odeed]

Who said Rudy walked through the hall in his bare feet? You are completely changing the subject because Fulcanelli has been backed into a corner. He stated that no clean up occurred in Meredith's room. He also believes that the luminol prints are set in blood. For both of these to be true, Amanda and Raffaele would have had to hop out of Meredith's room. We all know that is not a logical theory.

There is no proof that the luminol stains are blood. It is highly unlikely that anyone's bare foot could have been covered in that much blood to make almost complete footprints without tracking around a lot more blood. Those luminol prints were most likely made with a wet foot coming out of the shower. These prints are not dated. The bleach that is found in bathroom cleaners would be detectable for months with luminol.

I was under the impression that the effects of bleach on luminol tailed off after a few hours to the point that bleach was not detectable.

http://www.forensictv.net/Downloads...he_forensic_luminol_test_by_creamer_et_al.pdf

It is shown that cleaning a glazed tile surface with bleach-based cleaners produced levels of luminol CL indistinguishable from that of haemoglobin, thus compromisingthe evidentiary value of the bloodstain. It is noted, however, that bleach interference dissipates after ~ 8 h.

 

[Amazer]

I was under the impression that the effects of bleach on luminol tailed off after a few hours to the point that bleach was not detectable.

http://www.forensictv.net/Downloads...he_forensic_luminol_test_by_creamer_et_al.pdf

It should be clear that Amanda and Raffaele would only use very special bleach.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

I was under the impression that the effects of bleach on luminol tailed off after a few hours to the point that bleach was not detectable.

http://www.forensictv.net/Downloads...he_forensic_luminol_test_by_creamer_et_al.pdf

Household cleaners that contain bleach degrade at a much slower rate than pure hypochlorate (chlorine bleach). So they likely would be detectable for months.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

I updated this page to show without a doubt that the shoe print outside of Meredith's door is a left shoe. It also shows that the print was made from the front of the shoe. This gives you a better idea of the location of the print.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/door.html

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Here is a closer look at the shoe print located outside of Meredith's door. You can compare the print in the photo to the black and white image below. The black and white image shows the print that Rudy's left foot would have made on the floor. The two images are not to scale. The black and white image gives you the tread pattern.




Uploaded with ImageShack.us




Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

[odeed]

Household cleaners that contain bleach degrade at a much slower rate than pure hypochlorate (chlorine bleach). So they likely would be detectable for months.

Any evidence for this, because I just checked my bathroom and kitchen cleaners (different brands) and they both contain sodium hyporchlorite, and very little else.

I'll add, why would a manufacture make a product with a poisonous ingredient that stays around on surfaces for months?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

It should be clear that Amanda and Raffaele would only use very special bleach.

I believe your comment would be referring to a clean up effort that was never proven.

The prints were most likely made by wet feet coming out of the shower. household cleaners that contain bleach degrade at a much slower rate than pure hypochlorate (chlorine bleach). So they likely would be detectable for months.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Any evidence for this, because I just checked my bathroom and kitchen cleaners (different brands) and they both contain sodium hyporchlorite, and very little else.

I'll add, why would a manufacture make a product with a poisonous ingredient that stays around on surfaces for months?

These are questions for Chris Halkides and Steve Moore. I am no expert. I am giving you the information that I have.

The luminal stains were never proven to be blood. The prints are random and undated. They form no pattern at all throughout the cottage. They prove nothing. Whether or not they were made from a cleaning product is a side note.

The prints, set in visible blood, provide solid proof and point to one man, Rudy Guede.

 

[Amazer]

Your believe comment would be referring to a clean up effort that was never proven.

The prints were most likely made by wet feet coming out of the shower. household cleaners that contain bleach degrade at a much slower rate than pure hypochlorate (chlorine bleach). So they likely would be detectable for months.

Let me get this straight...

You think that those luminol foot prints were made by wet feet.

I presume that you mean Amanda's wet feet when she went for a shower that fateful morning?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I’ve followed this case quite closely since the trial began. I read a ton of articles on it, I’ve looked through most of the web sites for and against and I’ve read 3 books on it and I’ve tried to have an open mind about all this and finally I’ve come to a conclusion:

It doesn’t matter what evidence either side brings forward, there is a counter side to it. I believe this is true in most cases as well. I believe we will never find out exactly what happened that night either. Regardless of the trials and appeals outcome, there will always be two sides on this case, neither side admitting defeat.

In fact, I don’t believe I’ve ever read of a single person who actually changed their mind from one side to the other. I’ve heard guys say they originally thought one way but changed their mind once they got further into the case but no one who knows the case has ever been converted, that I've seen.

I’ve tried to base my opinion on hearing both sides and trying to deduce which side is more likely. Here is what they are:

a) I’m not even sure RS was present during the murder – but he was there afterwards

b) Amanda was not in the room during the murder, but she was in the house and was the initial cause of it.

c) Rudy didn’t lock the door; therefore the broken window was staged.

d) The luminal footprints and the one on the mat all belong to Amanda after she got out of the shower.

e) The shower didn’t happen at 11:00 AM

f) The E-Mail to friends was Amanda’s alibi/story that she wanted to stick to.

g) The double DNA knife wasn’t used in the murder, but likely was after (cut the bra off)

h) All the alibi’s/confessions at some point hold some truth in them, even Rudy’s.

i) Amanda was cuffed on the back of the head a couple of times and called a stupid lyre but that is not the reason she accused Patrick.

I’m not going to argue any of my points here, I still think there is about a 25 to 30% chance Amanda is innocent but like everyone else here, I’ll just have to go with however the courts rule and I’ll be happy with that. Well, maybe not, Rudy’s sentence, which could be further reduced and then off for good behaviour, just doesn’t seem quite fair.