Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bruce Fisher said:
Fucanelli, your explination of the mixed DNA is not credible.

Fulcanelli wrote: "Amanda's DNA 'was' mixed with Meredith's blood in the bathroom (and Filomena's room. However, nobody's DNA was found mixed in with Meredith's blood on the inside door handle of Meredith's room. At least two people were going around leaving blood from Meredith containing DNA from themselves mixed in...at least one person was leaving blood mixed with none of their DNA."


For starters Meredith's blood was not found in Filomena's room.

You honestly think that two people were walking around depositing blood throughout the cottage and one person was mixing their DNA with the blood and the other one was not?

Why would their DNA be guaranteed to be in all of the samples and the other person would be guaranteed to not be in the samples?

A lack of DNA does not lead to the conclusion that 2 people were involved.

Meredith's blood made contact to the surfaces of Amanda's bathroom. The blood mixed with residual DNA.
Click to expand...


You're quoting from PMF? Well, you're best off posting your protests to Michael, who wrote the post. But, I can see the logic in his post...logic is my language.

Why? take a mixing bowl...add cake mix...and then some wine. Stir it up. Put some of that cake mix on various places and test it. My guess is, the test will reveal each time, cake mix and wine.

That's what we got from Rudy when he touched the handbag...yet, with the light switch and door handle we not so much got a different set of ingredients, but also a cake mix with ingredients absent. That clearly indicates they came from a different bowl...and a different cake.
 
Last edited:
["Bruce Fisher" said:
]Repeating the same BS doesn't make it true. It makes you look foolish. Even credible people that think Amanda and Raffaele are guilty will say the prosecution had a weak case.
Click to expand...


We keep telling you that Bruce.
 
Last edited:
stilicho said:
Several thousand pages of evidence heard over an 11-month trial is about as close to a mountain as you can get.
Click to expand...

From the Wikipedia article about the case: "On 16 January 2009, the trial began . . . Hearings were held nearly [my emphasis] every two weeks (except for a summer break) [ditto] until 4 December 2009 . . . "

So during the trial of what was probably the most terrible crime this small city experienced in many years, one that attracted intense international scrutiny, the court convened less frequently than one day every two weeks? And ALSO took the summer off? While the defendants continued to sit in prison? So maybe 15 court days, maybe 20, during almost a year? Is this correct? If it is, I don't see how the jurors could possibly be insulated from outside influence, particularly by media and by friends and relatives. Do we really believe they didn't watch TV or read newspapers or talk to their friends and family about the case for 11 months? And how could they possibly retain all the details of complex, conflicting testimony about who said what when, DNA evidence, blood drops, footprints and more? How could this be a fair trial? Particularly when the presiding judge also "guides" their deliberations? Is this typical of how the Italian system does things? Even if you believe these two are guilty, it's hard to understand how this verdict could be considered beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
Last edited:
The jury were not isolated: they very seldom are in America and they are not even expected to be in Italy. There is a discussion about that in the previous thread too

The trial was held part-time to accommodate one of the defence lawyers, who could not attend every day as she had other committments, IIRC
 
Bruce Fishjer said:
Repeating the same BS doesn't make it true. It makes you look foolish. Even credible people that think Amanda and Raffaele are guilty will say the prosecution had a weak case.
Click to expand...


Neither does repeating the same worn out redundant excuses for 'not' reading the report.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
This makes no sense at all. Trials where people are found not guilty have the same pile of paperwork.
Click to expand...

And that would be the distinction. In this case, the mountain of evidence weighed heavily on the side of guilt.

Any word on all these 'credible people' who think AK and RS are guilty but that the case was weak? Cites, please.

@Bob001. The case took that long because of the schedules of the defence attorneys. The summer recess was partially expected but also because the defence attorneys claimed they hadn't been supplied sufficient time to review all the forensic evidence. Why did they want to drag it out so long?

How could this be a fair trial?

If you're still asking this question then you should have started from the beginning of the original thread.
 
Fiona said:
The jury were not isolated: they very seldom are in America and they are not even expected to be in Italy. There is a discussion about that in the previous thread too

The trial was held part-time to accommodate one of the defence lawyers, who could not attend every day as she had other committments, IIRC
Click to expand...

...and the summer off was at the request of the Defense...

Don't forget about that ;)
 
Bob001 said:
From the Wikipedia article about the case: "On 16 January 2009, the trial began . . . Hearings were held nearly [my emphasis] every two weeks (except for a summer break) [ditto] until 4 December 2009 . . . "

So during the trial of what was probably the most terrible crime this small city experienced in many years, one that attracted intense international scrutiny, the court convened less frequently than one day every two weeks? And ALSO took the summer off? While the defendants continued to sit in prison? So maybe 15 court days, maybe 20, during almost a year? Is this correct? If it is, I don't see how the jurors could possibly be insulated from outside influence, particularly by media and by friends and relatives. Do we really believe they didn't watch TV or read newspapers or talk to their friends and family about the case for 11 months? And how could they possibly retain all the details of complex, conflicting testimony about who said what when, DNA evidence, blood drops, footprints and more? How could this be a fair trial? Particularly when the presiding judge also "guides" their deliberations? Is this typical of how the Italian system does things? Even if you believe these two are guilty, it's hard to understand how this verdict could be considered beyond a reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...

It is when you base your understanding of the case on Wikipedia. That's your fault.
 
LondonJohn said:
RS's change of alibi support, and the text message which the police assumed (incorrectly) showed AK planning to meet Lumumba on the night of the murder (something which AK had already "suspiciously" denied).

And, in addition, the very fact that the police were (apparently) tapping her phone and monitoring her conversations are in and of themselves the acts of a police force who view a person as much more than a mere "witness", wouldn't you say?
Click to expand...

Yes, they were probably suspicious, and wanted to see if any evidence would surface, because without it she could not be made a suspect. None of the things you quoted were evidence.

Bruce Fisher said:
Fiona, stop with your nonsense. I will talk to Michael about anything I want.
Click to expand...
Huh! left field just a bit?

P.S Fiona, you really do have the patience of a saint
 
Last edited:
Bruce Fisher said:
Fulcanelli, You claim that Rudy didn't go into Meredith's purse because there was no DNA inside the purse to prove it.
Click to expand...

Or BLOOD, which is quite conclusive for someone we know had blood all over their hands (hence the blood on the outside of the purse).


Bruce Fisher said:
The purse was opened and some of the contents were taken. If everything is based on the DNA, who opened the purse? They must have found DNA to prove this. Who did it?
Click to expand...

'What' contents were taken? This assumes that what was taken from Meredith was originally in her handbag. This has not been established. It was not known, for certain, 'where' Meredith's money or belongings were. Indeed, all the evidence we do have seems to indicate her valuables were in her drawer, not her bag.


Bruce Fisher said:
Was Rudy unhappy with the location of the purse? He felt the need to simply move it?
Click to expand...

Who knows why he moved it? What we know is that he didn't go 'in' it and that's all that matters.


Bruce Fisher said:
Maybe it was a habit for him to turn of a lights. Who cares? The fact that there is blood on a light switch doesn't mean that Amanda or Raffaele were involved.
Click to expand...

Only your 'maybe' fits no pattern of logic.
 
Fulcanelli said:
LondonJohn believes any argument that says the ILE are bad and that Amanda is totally innocent :)

Irritations such as the actual facts, evidence and truth are simply an inconvenience.
Click to expand...

It's not your place to tell people what I believe or what I don't believe. How dare you presume to know what I believe. I warn you not to do that again.

And, on top of that, you've completely misrepresented my beliefs. I don't believe what you've attributed to me at all. I believe that there may be questions over the safety of the convictions that need answering. I don't even argue that the convictions are unsafe, only that they might be unsafe. I don't come at this from a belief that Amanda Knox (or Raffaele Sollecito) are innocent, and neither do I need to believe that in order to make an argument for an unsafe conviction. And if you think that you've got exclusive authority on "facts, evidence and truth" then you're badly wrong.

I am done for good with engaging with you as well. As with another poster, I thought it might be worth another try, but today's exchanges have sadly only served to confirm my previous thoughts. The fact that I won't be replying to you in any form from now on doesn't imply agreement or acquiescence - it just implies that I really don't like the way you attempt to argue. If you want to consider that in any way you've "won", then be my guest. I really don't care about what you say or think any more...
 
Last edited:
Mr.D said:
And yet this is still an argument to incredulity. The absence of the recording is still not evidence of premeditated intent or a coverup.
Click to expand...

I agree, which is why it's not the focus of my argument. My focus is that I believe the police might have deliberately kept Knox under "witness" status so as to avoid the need for recording equipment to come into the frame (or, for that matter, access to an attorney).
 
What evidence did they have that she had committed a crime before she accused Lumumba?
 
Danceme said:
Huh! left field just a bit?

P.S Fiona, you really do have the patience of a saint
Click to expand...


Why is that "left field?"

Fiona gets irritated if I ask Fulcanelli a question about something he said somewhere else. Does Fulcanelle have different opinions on different discussion boards?
 
Do you really not understand the difference between being suspicious and having evidence?
 
LondonJohn said:
It's not your place to tell people what I believe or what I don't believe. How dare you presume to know what I believe. I warn you not to do that again.

And, on top of that, you've completely misrepresented my beliefs. I don't believe what you've attributed to me at all. I believe that there may be questions over the safety of the convictions that need answering. I don't even argue that the convictions are unsafe, only that they might be unsafe. I don't come at this from a belief that Amanda Knox (or Raffaele Sollecito) are innocent, and neither do I need to believe that in order to make an argument for an unsafe conviction. And if you think that you've got exclusive authority on "facts, evidence and truth" then you're badly wrong.

I am done for good with engaging with you as well. As with another poster, I thought it might be worth another try, but today's exchanges have sadly only served to confirm my previous thoughts. The fact that I won't be replying to you in any form from now on doesn't imply agreement or acquiescence - it just implies that I really don't like the way you attempt to argue. If you want to consider that in any way you've "won", then be my guest. I really don't care about what you say or think any more...
Click to expand...

Most reasonable people see the same qualities in Fulcanelli that you see.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
Why is that "left field?"

Fiona gets irritated if I ask Fulcanelli a question about something he said somewhere else. Does Fulcanelle have different opinions on different discussion boards?
Click to expand...

Oh I am not so sure it was me who was irritated, really. I find I tend not to laugh so much when I am irritated ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom