Author Topic: Peter Falconio murder case---2001  (Read 618 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Samson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 172
Re: Peter Falconio murder case---2001
« Reply #15 on: April 08, 2017, 09:27:PM »
Charlie seems to believe everyone is innocent.
Not at all. He thinks Darlie Routier is guilty and I don't see the evidence there, and he often cites cases where factual guilt will illuminate a similar case of factual innocence. For example he cited 2 cases where killing of family was helpful in contrasting with the Banber case. 
Effectively, Charlie is an expert witness in crime analysis due to the voluminous research he has done, so a good point of reference.

In terms of this Falconio case I had been unaware of any suggestion there was an issue with the conviction, but that Lees is blameless was proved in court. Yes, treated a bit like Amanda Knox and the McCanns.
 
« Last Edit: April 08, 2017, 09:30:PM by Samson »

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 19650
Re: Peter Falconio murder case---2001
« Reply #16 on: April 08, 2017, 09:47:PM »
Not at all. He thinks Darlie Routier is guilty and I don't see the evidence there, and he often cites cases where factual guilt will illuminate a similar case of factual innocence. For example he cited 2 cases where killing of family was helpful in contrasting with the Banber case. 
Effectively, Charlie is an expert witness in crime analysis due to the voluminous research he has done, so a good point of reference.

In terms of this Falconio case I had been unaware of any suggestion there was an issue with the conviction, but that Lees is blameless was proved in court. Yes, treated a bit like Amanda Knox and the McCanns.

In which cases has Charlie been an expert witness
100% GUILTY - No doubts!

Offline Steve_uk

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8583
Re: Peter Falconio murder case---2001
« Reply #17 on: April 08, 2017, 09:55:PM »
Not at all. He thinks Darlie Routier is guilty and I don't see the evidence there, and he often cites cases where factual guilt will illuminate a similar case of factual innocence. For example he cited 2 cases where killing of family was helpful in contrasting with the Banber case. 
Effectively, Charlie is an expert witness in crime analysis due to the voluminous research he has done, so a good point of reference.

In terms of this Falconio case I had been unaware of any suggestion there was an issue with the conviction, but that Lees is blameless was proved in court. Yes, treated a bit like Amanda Knox and the McCanns.
..then you're a fool.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2017, 10:27:PM by Steve_uk »

Offline Samson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 172
Re: Peter Falconio murder case---2001
« Reply #18 on: April 09, 2017, 03:05:AM »
In which cases has Charlie been an expert witness
He is expert in the sense of being an assiduous researcher. In fact the Knox case was interesting because he and a group attacked at state department level, proving to the highest lawyers Knox was factually innocent with the science and all surrounding evidence. This meant that the Italian Government could be certain of a disaster if they upheld the convictions and requested extradition. Without this intervention no doubt Sollecito would have gone straight to jail. I have seen this from many angles, the Italian and the American. Ultimately England had no part to play in this disgrace, and it is notable the Kercher family are in denial at their obligation to apologise to Amanda Knox.

 

Offline Samson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 172
Re: Peter Falconio murder case---2001
« Reply #19 on: April 09, 2017, 03:10:AM »
..then you're a fool.
There seems to me to be an alternative suspect and excellent research around the screen door, the blood, the security lights and other factors. Once again the plot was stupid and extremely unlikely. I may be a fool, but there is a poster Sinsaint who runs rings around the guilters in debate. I haven't seen Charlie take her on.
What is the main data point that persuades you of Darlie Routier's guilt?
« Last Edit: April 09, 2017, 03:10:AM by Samson »

Offline Steve_uk

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8583
Re: Peter Falconio murder case---2001
« Reply #20 on: April 09, 2017, 02:25:PM »
There seems to me to be an alternative suspect and excellent research around the screen door, the blood, the security lights and other factors. Once again the plot was stupid and extremely unlikely. I may be a fool, but there is a poster Sinsaint who runs rings around the guilters in debate. I haven't seen Charlie take her on.
What is the main data point that persuades you of Darlie Routier's guilt?
There were no signs of an intruder, and the canvas screen had been cut from the inside. Also she picked up the kitchen knife which had come from the rack inside the house. The Silly String video, whilst not conclusive evidence did show that she was unaffected by the death of her sons.  http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7906.0.html
« Last Edit: April 09, 2017, 02:26:PM by Steve_uk »

Offline Samson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 172
Re: Peter Falconio murder case---2001
« Reply #21 on: April 10, 2017, 10:28:AM »
There were no signs of an intruder, and the canvas screen had been cut from the inside. Also she picked up the kitchen knife which had come from the rack inside the house. The Silly String video, whilst not conclusive evidence did show that she was unaffected by the death of her sons.  http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7906.0.html
And Anjelika Graswald and all sorts of wrongfully accused.