Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RWVBWL]

Hey Draca,
Here's another thing that I brought up yesterday that does not add up, in my opinion...

"Anyone else?
Among the 13 unattributed fingerprints only 4 were found in Meredith's room. 2 on a little calendar and 2 on the door. So not really central locations. But 4 is still an important number if we consider that the main actor left only one. Will they ever find an owner?"

Link:
http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/05/attack-to-police.html

See ya next time Draca, I'm out for the night.
Have a nice rest of your day.
RW

 

[Draca]

It was on Sample B of Rep 59:
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/selected_dna_results.pdf

As for the location of Sample B, I have just uploaded the best image I have:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/rep_59_bra.gif

Which is not very good, from a fax, but it looks like it was on the right shoulder strap.

"he'd kill us if he had the chance..."

Page 197:
Quote:
another sample, identified by the letter B - from the portion of the elastic band that runs from the lateral side of the woman’s body until the back part, adjacent to the missing little piece which was recovered separately. In the posterior part of the bra, indicated with the letter B, the Y profile of Rudy Hermann Guede emerged; the genetic profile of total DNA was that of the victim, from the victim’s blood.

Charlie, Looking at the photo you posted it isn't one of the straps, it's the side portion of the bra that the clasp was connected to at the end of it.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Hi Draca,
Thanks for your input.
I do so because A LOT of things do not add up...

Why wipe all the fingerprints and/or blood off 2 cell phones after you left feces in the toilet, handprints, fingerprints, and DNA in the murder room?
Etc, etc, etc...

I think the fallacy is to assume that nothing a criminal does is random when in fact, criminals often do strange things for no reason. Gary Ridgway killed more than 50 women, and usually he just dumped them. But a couple were found in what seemed to be ritual poses, with objects placed on or near their body in a way that suggested the killer was trying to make a statement. When Ridgway was caught, he agreed to cooperate to avoid the death penalty. So the police asked him why he did that, but only occasionally. He basically said just for the hell of it, it was something he did at random and he never intended to send a particular message.

 

[Malkmus]

Why would he bring that knife to the women's apartment to use when they had knives there already?

RS's father also said that his son's DNA on the bra clasp may be there since the women shared bras. I don't believe anything he says.

Sorry, just saw this...

I've stated several times that I don't think the knife was ever brought to the cottage and I've explained in detail why I think Raf wrote what he did in his diary. But again, to summarize.

1. According to Raffaele (and his dad) he cooked with Amanda and Meredith at the cottage at some point. According to Amanda's testimony Raf was over at the cottage several times when Meredith was there and they would socialize.

2. In one of the diary entries before the one about the "pricking" he talks about his lawyer telling him that it's possible the knife was borrowed by Amanda and ended up briefly at the cottage.

I believe when Raf was faced with the information that Meredith's DNA was on the knife he put the numbers one and two together and a light bulb went off in his head, suddenly realizing that this was what all the fuss was about, not that the knife had actually been used in the murder.

What his father's statement clarifies is that he was referring to an occasion at the cottage, not his own apartment, as the diary entry doesn't specify whose home the incident took place at. This is important because the longstanding reaction to this whole story has been "well, Meredith was never at Raffaele's apartment so that never could have happened".

I hope that makes sense. I don't know whether Raf was just speculating or whether the whole thing happened exactly as described. But I do know that there is no way to prove that it was definitely a lie.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Charlie, Looking at the photo you posted it isn't one of the straps, it's the side portion of the bra that the clasp was connected to at the end of it.

Yes, I just looked at the photo of the bra on the floor at the crime scene, and it looks like you are right. Which makes sense. Whether he cut the backstrap or ripped it free of the clasp, he would have gripped it firmly.

 

[komponisto]

I would not go with your choice of the word incompetent. Many on the list could just be plain wrong.

Many of the people on the list have to be considered as a part of a larger pool. For example, Curatolo. There may have been many people in that park over the course of the evening who did not see Knox or Sollecito. Let's say nineteen others. Then, Curatolo has to be the only liar out of twenty people in the park that night. That's not unusual. The same for Quintavalle. How many people were out and about in the area Knox must have walked on the morning of Nov 2, none of whom reported seeing Knox.

Looked at this way, it's not surprising to find one person out of many who either misremembers or out and out lies.

Excellent point. See What Evidence Filtered Evidence?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I would not go with your choice of the word incompetent. Many on the list could just be plain wrong.

Absolutely. Honest human error is a big factor, especially with witness ID. But willful misconduct is also a major factor. I'm reading this book called False Justice by Jim Petro, the former AG of Ohio. His conservative, law-and-order starting point makes his conclusions all the more disturbing, because he thinks willful misconduct is much more widespread than anyone would like to believe. There is this saying that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged. But it cuts the other way, too. Reality doesn't have a party affiliation.

 

[Dan O.]

Most people believe that is the same jacket as the person is wearing in the video. Do you? I don't.

Rudy's explains that the jacket he is seen holding upon his arrest was brought to him by his father while he was in jail in Germany. He sites the list of possessions when booked in Germany as proof. This is an easily verifiable claim so I will accept it unless it is refuted. Of course, as I've already posted, it is more than mere chance that the replacement jacket could be similar to the one disposed of.

Do you believe that Meredith had initiated the aborted/failed 8:56pm call to her Mom after parting ways with Sophie but while walking to her apartment?*

Timing an attack to abort a call in the split second before it is picked up by a cell tower seems like just too much of a coincident (If Meredith hit send, how long would it take the attacker to seize the phone, and end the call). I believe it is much more plausible that the call failed because of lack of cell coverage and that Meredith was attacked soon after arriving home before the call could be retried.

*If so, then I speculate that the initial attack happened right as she got home, with that CCTV video showing someone of a light skin color, a white guy, the possible culprit.

There is about a half hour difference from when the guy walks out of the car park till the other figure is seen crossing the street towards the drive leading to the cottage. Rudy says he was hanging around the cottage for that time. Why doesn't Rudy identify this person?

If somebody else killed Meredith while Rudy was in the bathroom, then Rudy is doing time for a crime he didn't commit. His final appeal is over so he is stuck with it. But then there is the question of how the DNA evidence got there. Did Rudy rape Meredith's body after she was killed by the stranger? Is this a separate charge that could be added to Rudy's sentence?

 

[Mary_H]

I think the fallacy is to assume that nothing a criminal does is random when in fact, criminals often do strange things for no reason. Gary Ridgway killed more than 50 women, and usually he just dumped them. But a couple were found in what seemed to be ritual poses, with objects placed on or near their body in a way that suggested the killer was trying to make a statement. When Ridgway was caught, he agreed to cooperate to avoid the death penalty. So the police asked him why he did that, but only occasionally. He basically said just for the hell of it, it was something he did at random and he never intended to send a particular message.

When you see Ridgway he looks like a stupid, empty shell. There is no expression in his face except confusion.

I took a class about serial killers at the University of Washington from Robert Koeppel, the Green River investigator who interviewed Ted Bundy. I was expecting to learn about the fascinating minds of serial killers. As it turns out, they are extremely uninteresting people.

 

[Chris C]

IIRC, this particular person made the explicit connection between the two identities on another form a couple of weeks ago, so I'd judge that this information was already out there in the public domain courtesy of the poster him/herself. However, I'm bemused as to what her religion has to do with the content or quality of his/her posts anyhow.....

We were talking about someones comments about anyone that doesn't believe in the holocaust should go to prison for life. Then said person says today on PMF that Knox has converted to Catholicism and is another sign that Knox is guilty. I pointed out that atleast 2 people are hating on non jews because of their comments. Yet want to accuse Knox of being evil because she hates jews. Yet there is no evidence Knox hates jews, but there is plenty of evidence that those 2 people are hating on non jews. So in fact they are doing the very thing they are accusing someone else of doing.

 

[LondonJohn]

Absolutely. Honest human error is a big factor, especially with witness ID. But willful misconduct is also a major factor. I'm reading this book called False Justice by Jim Petro, the former AG of Ohio. His conservative, law-and-order starting point makes his conclusions all the more disturbing, because he thinks willful misconduct is much more widespread than anyone would like to believe. There is this saying that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged. But it cuts the other way, too. Reality doesn't have a party affiliation.

I agree. The word "conspiracy" seems to be lazily employed by some, probably (I'm guessing) because they know it conjures up images of fake-moon-landing nutters and 911 "truthers". The case surrounding Knox and Sollecito didn't by any means require a conspiracy in this pejorative definition of the word. It required an over-zealous need to show competence and results by elements withing the Perugia police force, coupled with an egotistical and authoritarian prosecutor's office and a pliable judicial system.

There are numerous palpable (and provable) errors of fact and judgement in the police/prosecution/court actions - which can only (in my view) be attributed either to exceptional and sustained incompetence, tunnel vision / confirmation bias, or a systematic attempt to deceive. Personally, I favour the first two explanations over the third.

 

[LondonJohn]

Rudy's explains that the jacket he is seen holding upon his arrest was brought to him by his father while he was in jail in Germany. He sites the list of possessions when booked in Germany as proof. This is an easily verifiable claim so I will accept it unless it is refuted. Of course, as I've already posted, it is more than mere chance that the replacement jacket could be similar to the one disposed of.





Timing an attack to abort a call in the split second before it is picked up by a cell tower seems like just too much of a coincident (If Meredith hit send, how long would it take the attacker to seize the phone, and end the call). I believe it is much more plausible that the call failed because of lack of cell coverage and that Meredith was attacked soon after arriving home before the call could be retried.





There is about a half hour difference from when the guy walks out of the car park till the other figure is seen crossing the street towards the drive leading to the cottage. Rudy says he was hanging around the cottage for that time. Why doesn't Rudy identify this person?

If somebody else killed Meredith while Rudy was in the bathroom, then Rudy is doing time for a crime he didn't commit. His final appeal is over so he is stuck with it. But then there is the question of how the DNA evidence got there. Did Rudy rape Meredith's body after she was killed by the stranger? Is this a separate charge that could be added to Rudy's sentence?

I simply don't buy the theory that Guede was a bystander to the murder, and that the actual culprit is someone whom Guede is refusing to name for fear of reprisals. I think it's patently obvious that if the alternative was a decade or longer in prison, Guede would have named "the real culprit" - if not in or before his first trial, then certainly before his first appeal.

After all, if Guede had named the true killer, and that person had been apprehended, it's entirely possible that this person could have been linked positively to the murder (either through unidentified DNA at the scene, or by evidence collected from the new suspect's posession). If that were the case, Guede might have stood a good chance of getting a substantive sentence reduction, coupled with ongoing protection if he could convince the authorities that he was at risk of retaliation from associates of the "real killer". I can't see Guede not taking this option - especially as he had no real roots or family in Perugia. I suspect he'd have been relatively happy starting again in Milan or Rome with a new identity, somewhere to live, and a bit of money in his pocket.

I truly think that Guede alone was the instigator and perpetrator of this murder. I think that from the moment he was caught, he was trying to weave a story that he thought was compatible with the known evidence (e.g. he knew he couldn't deny he was in the cottage at the time of the murder), but which painted him in the best possible light. And I think his story is a load of self-serving nonsense.

In my opinion, it was Guede alone who broke into the cottage that night, he alone who confronted Meredith, he alone who attacked her in her room, he alone who initiated a sexual assault, he alone who stabbed Meredith when she tried to resist, he alone who continued the sexual assault as Meredith lay dying, he alone who used the small bathroom to clean himself down and to get towels (possibly to wipe obvious bloody footprints in Meredith's room), he alone who took Meredith's keys, phones, credit cards and money, and he alone who left via the front door and dumped the phones in Sig.a Lara's garden on the way back to his apartment.

 

[Chris C]

I simply don't buy the theory that Guede was a bystander to the murder, and that the actual culprit is someone whom Guede is refusing to name for fear of reprisals. I think it's patently obvious that if the alternative was a decade or longer in prison, Guede would have named "the real culprit" - if not in or before his first trial, then certainly before his first appeal.

After all, if Guede had named the true killer, and that person had been apprehended, it's entirely possible that this person could have been linked positively to the murder (either through unidentified DNA at the scene, or by evidence collected from the new suspect's posession). If that were the case, Guede might have stood a good chance of getting a substantive sentence reduction, coupled with ongoing protection if he could convince the authorities that he was at risk of retaliation from associates of the "real killer". I can't see Guede not taking this option - especially as he had no real roots or family in Perugia. I suspect he'd have been relatively happy starting again in Milan or Rome with a new identity, somewhere to live, and a bit of money in his pocket.

I truly think that Guede alone was the instigator and perpetrator of this murder. I think that from the moment he was caught, he was trying to weave a story that he thought was compatible with the known evidence (e.g. he knew he couldn't deny he was in the cottage at the time of the murder), but which painted him in the best possible light. And I think his story is a load of self-serving nonsense.

In my opinion, it was Guede alone who broke into the cottage that night, he alone who confronted Meredith, he alone who attacked her in her room, he alone who initiated a sexual assault, he alone who stabbed Meredith when she tried to resist, he alone who continued the sexual assault as Meredith lay dying, he alone who used the small bathroom to clean himself down and to get towels (possibly to wipe obvious bloody footprints in Meredith's room), he alone who took Meredith's keys, phones, credit cards and money, and he alone who left via the front door and dumped the phones in Sig.a Lara's garden on the way back to his apartment.

I agree, its kinda hard to fathom that 2 people watched Guede rape Meredith while she was dying.

 

[billyryan]

Absolutely. Honest human error is a big factor, especially with witness ID. But willful misconduct is also a major factor. I'm reading this book called False Justice by Jim Petro, the former AG of Ohio. His conservative, law-and-order starting point makes his conclusions all the more disturbing, because he thinks willful misconduct is much more widespread than anyone would like to believe. There is this saying that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged. But it cuts the other way, too. Reality doesn't have a party affiliation.

I agree with Jim Petro,miscarriages of justices do not happen by accident,all these cases involve misconduct by the prosecutors and/or police,at some point in all of these cases a piece of evidence has to be disappeared,a liar has to be got to give false evidence

The case in the Independent last week where semen was found on the young girl's body a thing the defendant was not capable of leaving,this piece of evidence was buried as it had to be to get the conviction
years later with a man's life destroyed as brutally as the young girl who was the original victim the miscarriage of justice was reversed,Perhaps then the saddest part of the article the people responsible for this crime,because that is what it was,were promoted to some of the most prestigious and highly paid posts in Great Britain

If I held anybody who posts on this forum against their will for an hour or a day I would face a minimum of ten years when convicted,but as we see time and time again if you are part of a prosecution team you can use your power to imprison innocent people and not in any way harm your promotional prospects

One thing I will say in favour of the Italian system,each stage of the prosecution has to be argued by a new prosecutor,every time a new man has to be brought into the conspiracy their is risks,last Saturday when Stefano Conti asked the judge if they could open up the knife handle immediately Maresca and Comodi were on there feet to object,I wonder if that was discussed before hand with Costagliola,I suspect not,I wonder afterwards in his office might he have asked them why they objected,after all the knife was badly cleaned a trace of the blood from the murder has to be in there it will prove our case beyond a shadow of a doubt,whatever reasons they gave they couldn't tell him the truth, THIS KNIFE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MURDER

 

[Cuddles]

Do not post personal information unless it is both publicly available and directly relevant to the topic.

Also, stay on topic.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

 

[CDHost]

I agree. The word "conspiracy" seems to be lazily employed by some, probably (I'm guessing) because they know it conjures up images of fake-moon-landing nutters and 911 "truthers". The case surrounding Knox and Sollecito didn't by any means require a conspiracy in this pejorative definition of the word. It required an over-zealous need to show competence and results by elements withing the Perugia police force, coupled with an egotistical and authoritarian prosecutor's office and a pliable judicial system.

There are numerous palpable (and provable) errors of fact and judgement in the police/prosecution/court actions - which can only (in my view) be attributed either to exceptional and sustained incompetence, tunnel vision / confirmation bias, or a systematic attempt to deceive. Personally, I favour the first two explanations over the third.

There is actually a political angle to this, at least in the states. 30 years ago political and governmental institutions were freely talked about in terms of structural functionalism. So it was common to ask questions when laws were passed and policies changed about what the likely pragmatic effects would be.

We now have, at least on the right, an idealogical culture that makes idealogical assertions about the universe without evidence. Something I think JREF exists to fight politically. Asking questions about the base changes of function aren't allowed.

So for example its considered "xenophobic / conspiracy" to point out how a court system is likely to shift its perceptions when it moves from purely adversarial to incorporation a prosecutor as one of the judges. What happens in a structure where the trial mechanism is very distant from the law enforcement agencies, and what happens when they are very close?

The term conspiracy theory is used so widely for anything requiring cooperation: do you know how many people at Bosch were required to have worked together to make that dishwasher, what a ridiculous theory that people can cooperate in that way. If anyone is interested here is a good description about conspiracy theories and how limited they are and how they actually work.

 

[Justinian2]

I think the fallacy is to assume that nothing a criminal does is random when in fact, criminals often do strange things for no reason. Gary Ridgway killed more than 50 women, and usually he just dumped them. But a couple were found in what seemed to be ritual poses, with objects placed on or near their body in a way that suggested the killer was trying to make a statement. When Ridgway was caught, he agreed to cooperate to avoid the death penalty. So the police asked him why he did that, but only occasionally. He basically said just for the hell of it, it was something he did at random and he never intended to send a particular message.

I think the fallacy is to assume that nothing a criminal does is random.

It is wrong to think that all of men's actions are logical all of the time.

I think a person is mature to the degree that he believes that each person is unique. Part of a person's identity and uniqueness is the pattern of their illogic.

Nobody in Perugia was totally logical all of the time. Any logic in Perugia was found in small chains connected, if at all, by massive amounts of BS.

 

[Onofarar]

Theory on sub-conscious motivation

Several key figures in the prosecution of Ak are women (Comodi, Monica N., the police translator & HFCB to name a few). This is somewhat extraordinary given the male-dominated society that is Italy. Then I pondered that most of these women seemed over-zealous in their efforts to pin the crime on AK.

So here is my admittedly arcane theory (this is not the main motivation for what has happened rather a secondary one - probably subconsciously).

Drawing again on my knowledge of the OJS trial - in which one of the main fallacies in the prosecution's handling of the case was the emphasis on the domestic abuse of Nicole Simpson by OJ. Interviews with the female jurors after the trial indicated they dismissed this logic because "this kind of thing goes on all the time in families". Many experts felt this explanation was a justification of their dislike for Nicole for "stealing" a "black brother" from a "sister" - aka a black women.
Therefore, I just wonder if there was some resentment toward AK due to her relationship with RS?

 

[Justinian2]

I agree. The word "conspiracy" seems to be lazily employed by some, probably (I'm guessing) because they know it conjures up images of fake-moon-landing nutters.

I object to being implied a 'nutter'. The moon landing video should have shown jumps as high as 10-15 feet because of 1/6th gravity. One of the scientific discussions is whether the weight and stiffness of the suits could restrict the maximum observed jump to 10-15 inches.

I'm not a conspiracy person so much as a person that believes that government is deceitful, prone to error and prone to concatinate error and deceit.

The prosecution of Amanda and Raffaele has especially long chains of error and deceit.

 

[RoseMontague]

Here's a short list, just 25 people, who must have either lied, been incompetent (in either memory or professionalism) or corrupt in regard to AK and RS's conviction:

1. Stefanoni
2. Curatolo
3. Mignini
4. Kokomani
5. Capezzali
6. Quintavalle
7. Comodi
8. Napoleoni
9. Zugarini
10. Maresca
11. Battistelli
12. Brocci
13. Rosignoli
14. Monacchia
15. Dramis
16. Lalli
17. Finzi
18. Torricelli
19. Cristiani
20. Romanelli
21. Altieri
22. Trotta
23. Norelli
24. Profazio
25. Ceccarelli

So we are supposed to believe that all of these 25 people, most who don't even know each other, are wrong in regard to what they know about this murder.

All of them.

I would not go with your choice of the word incompetent. Many on the list could just be plain wrong.

Many of the people on the list have to be considered as a part of a larger pool. For example, Curatolo. There may have been many people in that park over the course of the evening who did not see Knox or Sollecito. Let's say nineteen others. Then, Curatolo has to be the only liar out of twenty people in the park that night. That's not unusual. The same for Quintavalle. How many people were out and about in the area Knox must have walked on the morning of Nov 2, none of whom reported seeing Knox.

Looked at this way, it's not surprising to find one person out of many who either misremembers or out and out lies.

Incompetent would be Rinaldi who is missing from the list for some reason and I would also put Amanda and Raffaele on my list because I have stated previously they were not completely truthful about everything. I would also put Massei on the list because his competence in the area of reasoning seems to me to be lacking. Actually put all the judges and jurors on the list along with 90% of the journalists that covered this case, and most of the lawyers involved as well. Let's throw a few websites in and maybe some public officials, a whole list of cops and forensic investigators, etc, etc.

As far as who is directly involved in the conspiracy plan I would give that status to are Mignini, Stefanoni, and possibly Rinaldi. If the interviews with Amanda were taped and I believe that is a very likely possibility, I would give cover-up status to those involved with that. Others on the list are just putting a certain spin on the evidence or are trying to be "helpful" or maybe are just mistaken or confused. Lying liar status goes to Curatolo and Quintavalle. Trotta was the computer "expert" (if I am not mistaken) and could be on the conspiracy list, lying liar list, incompetent list, idiot list or all the lists here.

I guess my point is this list is a list and it might be fun breaking it down but I don't see any special significance in either a high or low number, it is of course, mostly a subjective choice in any case.