Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #18

[Fulcanelli]

Because Rudy's DNA was inside the victim, his fingerprints were found in the victims blood, his faeces in the toilet and he had no reason for any trace of him to be there since he did not live there. These are just a few of the more compelling pieces of evidence against him.

In other words, because they don't explain the evidence against Rudy Guede that was found. Just as they don't explain the evidence against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito that was found. Right. I'm glad we're all agreed on that and can move on.

 

[Sonata]

If it is a cleaning product, why isn't the whole cottage glowing? Or are you proposing they indulged themselves with a nice Draino foot bath?

As I said regarding the boots (and ruler), reflected light from the glow of the luminol.

Could be from a product used in the shower for example. Most people use different products for different areas of the house and usually the stronger ones would be used in the bathroom.

 

[Sonata]

In other words, because they don't explain the evidence against Rudy Guede that was found. Just as they don't explain the evidence against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito that was found. Right. I'm glad we're all agreed on that and can move on.

:floorlaugh:

I don't think I have agreed with you once in this entire discussion. So no, we are not agreed on it. That is not what I said as I am sure you well know.

 

[Fulcanelli]

So you are unequivocally right? You believe beyond any doubt that you have this right? There is no room for you to be wrong at all?

You do realise how that sounds, right?

No, the 'evidence' is right. One must always follow the evidence. And then one will be right.

Yes, I believe it beyond the point of all reasonable doubt. And I have no problem with that, since multiple courts and nearly 30 judges agree with me and vice versa.

 

[Fulcanelli]

:floorlaugh:

I don't think I have agreed with you once in this entire discussion. So no, we are not agreed on it. That is not what I said as I am sure you well know.

Well, you've yet to explain how and why it should eliminate all the evidence against Knox and Sollecito yet not eliminate the evidence against Guede, so I'm therefore assuming you are not arguing that. If you are, then you should explain it.

 

[Sonata]

No, the 'evidence' is right. One must always follow the evidence. And then one will be right.

Yes, I believe it beyond the point of all reasonable doubt. And I have no problem with that, since multiple courts and nearly 30 judges agree with me and vice versa.

Not sure I agree on your first point. Evidence is not proof. And proof is surely the only guarantee of truth.

The second point is your call. Just thought I would make you aware of how that can come across.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Could be from a product used in the shower for example. Most people use different products for different areas of the house and usually the stronger ones would be used in the bathroom.

So, why wasn't the shower glowing? Why wasn't there more evidence of it in the corridor or Amanda's room? How come Meredith was immune to this 'product'? How did Raffaele get this 'product' on his foot? What was this mysterious 'product'? 'Where' is it?

 

[Sonata]

Well, you've yet to explain how and why it should eliminate all the evidence against Knox and Sollecito yet not eliminate the evidence against Guede, so I'm therefore assuming you are not arguing that. If you are, then you should explain it.

I did explain it actually. But for those who didn't understand it I will explain further:

The evidence against Rudy includes

- fingerprints (which can forensically be matched beyond any doubt as opposed to footprints which cannot be)
- shoeprints (again, these can be matched)
- faeces in the toilet which he ADMITS belong to him
- DNA inside of the victim (The DNA collected at the scene of the crime is in question, the postmortem has not been questioned)

In addition, any traces of Rudy found at the cottage cannot be explained by him living there as they can with AK.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Not sure I agree on your first point. Evidence is not proof. And proof is surely the only guarantee of truth.

The second point is your call. Just thought I would make you aware of how that can come across.

Convictions require evidence, not proof. Enough evidence, constitutes proof.

 

[Sonata]

So, why wasn't the shower glowing? Why wasn't there more evidence of it in the corridor or Amanda's room? How come Meredith was immune to this 'product'? How did Raffaele get this 'product' on his foot? What was this mysterious 'product'? 'Where' is it?

Presumably a cleaning product which would be found in the flat. Since as you well know I am hypothesising I obviously cannot cite the location or name of the product.

The product would probably only be on the feet of the person who next used the shower, and since AK and RS were known to share showers, that's pretty explainable.

 

[Sonata]

Convictions require evidence, not proof. Enough evidence, constitutes proof.

Yes, but not all convictions are upheld despite having evidence. Sometimes, new evidence comes to light which exonerates the original convict. Therefore, it is only proof which indicates certainty.

Evidence of guilt does NOT equate proof of guilt.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I did explain it actually. But for those who didn't understand it I will explain further:

The evidence against Rudy includes

- fingerprints (which can forensically be matched beyond any doubt as opposed to footprints which cannot be)
- shoeprints (again, these can be matched)
- faeces in the toilet which he ADMITS belong to him
- DNA inside of the victim (The DNA collected at the scene of the crime is in question, the postmortem has not been questioned)

In addition, any traces of Rudy found at the cottage cannot be explained by him living there as they can with AK.

Pretty much none of the evidence I listed above can be explained by Knox 'living there'. And by the way, Raffaele 'didn't' live there.

Actually, the footprints were never 'matched' to Guede, since his shoes were never found in order to be matched. The DNA inside the victim isn't Rudy's profile. Did you know that? It's his Y-haplotype only. As a Knox supporter helpfully pointed out on another site, only males have the Y-haplotype and all males have it. There are only about 30 different Y-haplotypes in the world, so Rudy's Y-haplotype is actually shared by millions of men. Indeed, Y-haplotypes are much much weaker as DNA evidence then even Low Copy Number DNA (as even that reveals a full profile, whereas Y-haplotype is not a profile). In fact, almost all, if not all, of Rudy's DNA found at the cottage is limited to Y-haplotype.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Yes, but not all convictions are upheld despite having evidence. Sometimes, new evidence comes to light which exonerates the original convict. Therefore, it is only proof which indicates certainty.

Evidence of guilt does NOT equate proof of guilt.

Sure, but that new evidence hasn't come to light in this case. Unless and until it does, it stands. And it's good enough.

 

[Sonata]

Pretty much none of the evidence I listed above can be explained by Knox 'living there'. And by the way, Raffaele 'didn't' live there.

Actually, the footprints were never 'matched' to Guede, since his shoes were never found in order to be matched. The DNA inside the victim isn't Rudy's profile. Did you know that? It's his Y-haplotype only. As a Knox supporter helpfully pointed out on another site, only males have the Y-haplotype and all males have it. There are only about 30 different Y-haplotypes in the world, so Rudy's Y-haplotype is actually shared by millions of men. Indeed, Y-haplotypes are much much weaker as DNA evidence then even Low Copy Number DNA (as even that reveals a full profile, whereas Y-haplotype is not a profile). In fact, almost all, if not all, of Rudy's DNA found at the cottage is limited to Y-haplotype.

No but Raffaele had reason to be there as he was the boyfriend of a resident. As far as we know, Rudy had never been permitted by residents to enter.

Knox's DNA being present or footprints being present do not hold the water that Guede's do as she lived there. Sorry, but that is true.

The point is that the DNA collection at the scene was clearly carried out in a negligent manner, so DNA found at the scene does not seem totally reliable. The evidence against AK and RS is largely DNA found at the scene.

 

[Sonata]

Sure, but that new evidence hasn't come to light in this case. Unless and until it does, it stands. And it's good enough.

I think that is the entire point of the appeal actually. So, we'll have to wait and see what happens later this month.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Presumably a cleaning product which would be found in the flat. Since as you well know I am hypothesising I obviously cannot cite the location or name of the product.

The product would probably only be on the feet of the person who next used the shower, and since AK and RS were known to share showers, that's pretty explainable.

'What' mythical cleaning product? The defence couldn't find it. And please, explain it's selective and highly incriminating appearance. You are clutching at straws with that. Nobody can reasonably conclude that it was an unknown cleaning product that does not exist and appears only in a way that incriminates the defendants.

Do have a documented record of Raffaele showering at Amanda's? Why would Raffaele shower at a house full of girls? Why would he shower there when he had his own shower a 4 minute walk away? Why would he shower there when it was Amanda staying round his place with him, not him staying round her place with her? Have Amanda and Raffaele (or their lawyers) ever claimed that he ever showered at the cottage? Answer: No. If they ever do claim it, come back to me with it and I'll consider it again then.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I think that is the entire point of the appeal actually. So, we'll have to wait and see what happens later this month.

But only the knife/bra clasp DNA and the testimony of Curatolo has been examined...and will be. So, what about all the rest?

 

[Sonata]

'What' mythical cleaning product? The defence couldn't find it. And please, explain it's selective and highly incriminating appearance. You are clutching at straws with that. Nobody can reasonably conclude that it was an unknown cleaning product that does not exist and appears only in a way that incriminates the defendants.

Do have a documented record of Raffaele showering at Amanda's? Why would Raffaele shower at a house full of girls? Why would he shower there when he had his own shower a 4 minute walk away? Why would he shower there when it was Amanda staying round his place with him, not him staying round her place with her? Have Amanda and Raffaele (or their lawyers) ever claimed that he ever showered at the cottage? Answer: No. If they ever do claim it, come back to me with it and I'll consider it again then.

:floorlaugh:

Never shared a shower with your lover? I lived with girls for years and yes they brought boyfriends home and shared baths and showers with them. Pretty normal. Knox stated that they shared showers when she said about Raffaelle cleaning her ears.

As I said before and you are clearly tactically ignoring, I am hypothesising on the cleaning product. And it is rather bold of you to accuse me of clutching at straws, not particularly good forum etiquette there my friend.

 

[Fulcanelli]

No but Raffaele had reason to be there as he was the boyfriend of a resident. As far as we know, Rudy had never been permitted by residents to enter.

Knox's DNA being present or footprints being present do not hold the water that Guede's do as she lived there. Sorry, but that is true.

The point is that the DNA collection at the scene was clearly carried out in a negligent manner, so DNA found at the scene does not seem totally reliable. The evidence against AK and RS is largely DNA found at the scene.

He had reason to have his DNA on on Meredith's bra clasp and his bare bloody footprints in Meredith's blood because he was Knox's boyfriend?

Could it also be that he murdered Meredith with Amanda, because he was Knox's boyfriend?

 

[Sonata]

But only the knife/bra clasp DNA and the testimony of Curatolo has been examined...and will be. So, what about all the rest?

Well, that all depends on Hellman at this stage. Until we know his ruling we don't know how significant the rest will be legally considered.