Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Bruce Fischer]

Actually, my argument was not based on whether the footprints are left or right, it was you that tried to make that a central point. My argument was based on the fact that they were all pointing the wrong way. The pattern of prints tells a distinct story...that Rudy ran out of the cottage without breaking stride.

The prints actually show Rudy stopping before he left possibly to put on a coat.

All of the credible evidence points directly at Rudy. It is not difficult to to describe a scenario showing him completing all of the tasks that the evidence suggests.

It is very difficult to present a logical scenario that puts Amanda and Raffaele into the mix.

That's why we talk about elaborate impossible clean up efforts and kitchen knives that are carried for protection.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

If Rudy didn't walk around in bare feet, how then do you assign the bloody footprint on the mat and it's identical partner in the corridor to Rudy?

No clean-up occurred around Meredith's body. I'm not so sure about the area between her feet and the door way though. In addition, there are lots of partial prints in the room, too damaged to match to any individual...no doubt because there was so much activity in such a small place. And as for the hopping idea, I wouldn't put that past them either...why not?
There is no proof that the print on the bathmat matches the print in the hall. You can use Kermit's powerpoint if you like but that isn't anything even close to being credible evidence.

For the record, Fulcanelli thinks it could be a logical scenario for Amanda and Raffaele to hop around the cottage.

 

[LondonJohn]

But no individual piece of circumstantial evidence 'can' be proven beyond a reasonable doubt...that's why it's called circumstantial. Take the evidence of a witness for example...you can't prove a witness testimony to be beyond reasonable doubt, it must all come down to whether you find them credible or not, whether you 'believe' them.

Also, as a point of clarification, the distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence is over whether the evidence, in and of itself, could (if found to be accurate) prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It's not about whether the evidence itself can or cannot be proven to be accurate beyond a reasonable doubt.

Direct evidence would include an eyewitness to the crime being committed, photo/video evidence, or a confession (under certain conditions). All of these things, if they were shown in court to be true and accurate, would immediately prove the guilt of the defendant beyond reasonable doubt.

But any of these pieces of direct evidence would themselves have to be proven to be true and accurate beyond a reasonable doubt first. This would be relatively easy in the case of - say - a high-quality video/audio recording of the crime being committed, which clearly showed the identity of the victim and the assailant. But it might be far more difficult in the case of testimony from an eyewitness to the crime (direct - not circumstantial -evidence, remember). If the defence could introduce reasonable doubt over the accuracy or veracity of the eyewitness's identification testimony, then this direct evidence would be worthless to the prosecution.

In the same way, there are areas of circumstantial evidence that may be relatively easy to prove as accurate (DNA tested under correct procedures, gun barrel identification markings...), and there are other areas of circumstantial evidence which are more open to doubt (chiefly anything eyewitness-related).

 

[Bruce Fischer]

How does it make sense that Rudi would go to the bathroom, clean his shoe, go back into Meredith's room, walk in blood again, and this time not bother to clean his shoe? AND, there is no dna of Rudi in the bathroom, or Filomena's room.

There was a small amount of blood on his shoe when we made his way out of the cottage. When people think of shoe prints, they think of big bold bright prints. That was not the case. The footprints were traces of blood by the time they got to the door. None of the prints were complete.

He stepped in blood as he was leaving. It is a very logical view of the evidence provided.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Yes you did miss the point of the locked door and it is entirely relevant to how the investigators, the prosecutors, and the judges arrived at their conclusions.

You must be asking yourself how come you're so much cleverer than the real-life expensive lawyers paid to defend Amanda and Raffaele. They didn't put half the effort into explaining away the locked door as you have because they don't want it to be featured. It remains one of the rock-solid portions of the prosecution's case that pointed only to Amanda or Raffaele.
Once you are provided the opportunity (courtesy of the volunteers at the PMF) to read the entire Massei Report, you will realise that the locked bedroom door is evidence in and of itself that Amanda helped kill her flatmate.

As you know arguments on JREF are talked to death. That's the only reason this has been discussed in such great detail. So many facts about the door were incorrect on PMF. They needed to be cleared up.

Please give me one piece of evidence that proves Amanda or Raffaele locked that door. Just one will be fine.

I already showed you how easily Rudy could have locked the door. If you do not see that it would have been an easy task then you just refuse to open your eyes and see it.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Me neither. Assuming the break-in was staged, of course.

One doesn't need to assume, the evidence is clear.

 

[Fulcanelli]

If Rudy didn't walk around in bare feet, how then do you assign the bloody footprint on the mat and it's identical partner in the corridor to Rudy?

No clean-up occurred around Meredith's body. I'm not so sure about the area between her feet and the door way though. In addition, there are lots of partial prints in the room, too damaged to match to any individual...no doubt because there was so much activity in such a small place. And as for the hopping idea, I wouldn't put that past them either...why not?
There is no proof that the print on the bathmat matches the print in the hall. You can use Kermit's powerpoint if you like but that isn't anything even close to being credible evidence.

For the record, Fulcanelli thinks it could be a logical scenario for Amanda and Raffaele to hop around the cottage.

The court thought differently.

And it is quote common to hop, if ones stepped in something nasty and doesn't want to traipse it all over their house.

 

[Fulcanelli]

As you know arguments on JREF are talked to death. That's the only reason this has been discussed in such great detail. So many facts about the door were incorrect on PMF. They needed to be cleared up.

Please give me one piece of evidence that proves Amanda or Raffaele locked that door. Just one will be fine.

I already showed you how easily Rudy could have locked the door. If you do not see that it would have been an easy task then you just refuse to open your eyes and see it.

Because the evidence shows Rudy didn't lock the door and that Amanda and Raffaele were present and had good reason to do so.

As for what you 'showed us', you showed us an argument...I didn't find it convincing. For a start, there's not even a partial print from Rudy's other foot where it should be had he stood how you suggested.

 

[RWVBWL]

The court thought differently.QUOTE]
_________________________________________________________________

And the court, in my own opinion and many others too, got it wrong...
Thank goodness for Appeal Trials!
RWVBWL

 

[Fulcanelli]

That's why we talk about elaborate impossible clean up efforts and kitchen knives that are carried for protection.

I've never said anything about a kitchen knife being carried for protection, neither has anyone else here. That's something 'you' like to keep harping on about, so it's a straw man.

You've also yet to explain why a clean-up' was 'impossible', yet you assert it.

 

[Fulcanelli]

The court thought differently.QUOTE]
_________________________________________________________________

And the court, in my own opinion and many others too, got it wrong...
Thank goodness for Appeal Trials!
RWVBWL

How could a court possibly get it wrong when the defendants were represented by so many top experts? Courts generally get things wrong because the defendant is poorly represented. Not so in this case.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Because the evidence shows Rudy didn't lock the door and that Amanda and Raffaele were present and had good reason to do so.

As for what you 'showed us', you showed us an argument...I didn't find it convincing. For a start, there's not even a partial print from Rudy's other foot where it should be had he stood how you suggested.

No evidence shows that Rudy didn't lock the door.

All of the prints were made from Rudy's left shoe. There was no blood on his right shoe.

I am surprised that you do not know this. All of the prints on the hall leading toward the door are from Rudy's left shoe.

 

[odeed]

As you know arguments on JREF are talked to death. That's the only reason this has been discussed in such great detail. So many facts about the door were incorrect on PMF. They needed to be cleared up.

Please give me one piece of evidence that proves Amanda or Raffaele locked that door. Just one will be fine.

I already showed you how easily Rudy could have locked the door. If you do not see that it would have been an easy task then you just refuse to open your eyes and see it.

Because the evidence shows Rudy didn't lock the door and that Amanda and Raffaele were present and had good reason to do so.

As for what you 'showed us', you showed us an argument...I didn't find it convincing. For a start, there's not even a partial print from Rudy's other foot where it should be had he stood how you suggested.

Wasn't Rudy seen later in a nightclub, and the evidence suggest that Meredith's body was moved a few of hours after her death?

 

[Fulcanelli]

No evidence shows that Rudy didn't lock the door.

All of the prints were made from Rudy's left shoe. There was no blood on his right shoe.

I am surprised that you do not know this. All of the prints on the hall leading toward the door are from Rudy's left shoe.

There are no partial prints then?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

The court thought differently.

And it is quote common to hop, if ones stepped in something nasty and doesn't want to traipse it all over their house.

I am entertained at the fact that you think Amanda and Raffaele would have hopped around the cottage.

If Amanda and Raffaele had just committed a horrible murder, the last thing on their minds would have been to hop around to avoid leaving shoe prints.

There are no prints in the room from them. Not one. So are you trying to say that Amanda and Raffaele hopped around as they were participating in the murder?

Believe what you want. It's just not logical.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I am entertained at the fact that you think Amanda and Raffaele would have hopped around the cottage.

If Amanda and Raffaele had just committed a horrible murder, the last thing on their minds would have been to hop around to avoid leaving shoe prints.

There are no prints in the room from them. Not one. So are you trying to say that Amanda and Raffaele hopped around as they were participating in the murder?

Believe what you want. It's just not logical.

Of course it would, if they were concerned about leaving evidence and being caught, which clearly they were. Rudy didn't live there, so he could just run away. Amanda had no such luxury because she lived there. There also was a degree of cleaning.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I am entertained at the fact that you think Amanda and Raffaele would have hopped around the cottage.

If Amanda and Raffaele had just committed a horrible murder, the last thing on their minds would have been to hop around to avoid leaving shoe prints.

There are no prints in the room from them. Not one. So are you trying to say that Amanda and Raffaele hopped around as they were participating in the murder?

Believe what you want. It's just not logical.

Didn't Amanda herself testify that she did a 'bunny hop' with the blue mat after her shower, and also that her feet didn't always stay on the mat?

 

[el buscador]

Of course it would, if they were concerned about leaving evidence and being caught, which clearly they were. Rudy didn't live there, so he could just run away. Amanda had no such luxury because she lived there. There also was a degree of cleaning.

Hmmm, was that 1 degree of cleaning? 5? 25? 50 degrees? And where in the house? Was it 10 degrees on the floor in the hall? 2 degrees in the bathroom? Can you show specifics or photos of any degree of cleanup in any room of the house?

 

[HumanityBlues]

I read a funny theory the other day on the cleanup by one of the commenters on Perugia-Shock from a year ago. Someone asked how AK and RS managed to use all the bleach and get none of it on their clothes. "Michael" (who happens to write just like our favorite troll and court jester here, misusing his "then" and "than"s) said that it was because the two got completely naked to do the cleanup. Yes, someone said that. They stripped naked to do the cleanup. One of the dumbest arguments I've heard about the cleanup, but there you have it.

 

[christianahannah]

I read a funny theory the other day on the cleanup by one of the commenters on Perugia-Shock from a year ago. Someone asked how AK and RS managed to use all the bleach and get none of it on their clothes. "Michael" (who happens to write just like our favorite troll and court jester here, misusing his "then" and "than"s) said that it was because the two got completely naked to do the cleanup. Yes, someone said that. They stripped naked to do the cleanup. One of the dumbest arguments I've heard about the cleanup, but there you have it.

Reading Perugia-Shock from the beginning is quite interesting, isn't it?

About bleach and cleanup and luminol and footprints, etc. - can bleach be diluted with water to wash away footprints with blood or does it have to be full strength? Did anyone mention that they noticed the smell of bleach when entering the flat on November 2?