Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Supernaut]

do you think they destroyed it [the bra clasp] on purpose?

It WAS destoyed.

"On purpose"?

Out of stupidity?

What do YOU think?

TELL us, genius.

 

[yeti101]

i'm not sure. pretty careless if it was by accident.

do you think RG acted alone?. Prosecution seem pretty convinced there was more than 1 person involved. For me the body being covered and door locked seems like the actions of someone else not RG.

 

[spartacus]

Dont know her status but she is included with 4 police officers, for a total of 5 officials who claim to be slandered by AK.

She described herself as a "mediator". Some think she may have been the one to strike the blows to the head. She also offered the helpful story about how she broke her ankle and couldn't remember what happened as an example of how maybe Amanda "forgot" what happened because of the trauma. Then she said "Prova!"

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

i'm not sure. pretty careless if it was by accident.

do you think RG acted alone?. Prosecution seem pretty convinced there was more than 1 person involved.

Well yes, but there's independent evidence that Mignini is a fruit loop who sees unnecessarily complicated Satanic conspiracies that don't exist.

There's also the small problem of the total lack of evidence for more than one person being involved.

For me the body being covered and door locked seems like the actions of someone else not RG.

Why does it seem to you that those are the actions of someone else not RG?

 

[yeti101]

Well yes, but there's independent evidence that Mignini is a fruit loop who sees unnecessarily complicated Satanic conspiracies that don't exist.

There's also the small problem of the total lack of evidence for more than one person being involved.

Why does it seem to you that those are the actions of someone else not RG?

i don't know the reason why he would do that. There could be one I just dont know it. Also covering the body & closing/locking the door is at odds with how he left the bathroom. On the one hand we have organized but on the other disorganized.

 

[spartacus]

do you think they destroyed it on purpose?

Personally I don't - I just don't think Stefanoni is properly trained. You can see it in her refusal to give up the raw data. Any real scientist would understand the importance of this.

 

[spartacus]

btw I think the knife and bra clasp are contamination. Stefanoni claims that her lab (which is not acredited) has "never" had contamination. This is impossible. She uses a low copy number protocol but her lab is not set up to do this. She does not provide documentation for her assertion that she has never had contamination. She refuses to hand over her raw data for months for independant experts to check her work. She is shown on video walking from room to room without changing gloves and collecting evidence (why she was personally there in the first place is another question). She wraps a mop in gift wrapping paper in a bizarre effort to secure the crime scene. She has no evidence of an academic publication record. She formulates bizarre theories about how she can tell if DNA is from blood or not based on "white corpuscles" that is accepted nowhere else in the international scientific community other than Luciano Garofano or Giuliano Mignini.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

i don't know the reason why he would do that. There could be one I just dont know it.

That's not exactly what I'd call a watertight argument then, is it? Knowing nothing about the matter you kind of sort of think maybe he wouldn't do that... I'm pretty sure it's going to be tough to get from there to proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Also covering the body & closing/locking the door is at odds with how he left the bathroom. On the one hand we have organized but on the other disorganized.

Were you under the impression that there were obvious signs in the bathroom that a murder had been committed, perhaps comparable in obviousness to a dead body in a pool of blood?

If so that's actually not right. There was a small amount of blood in (if I recall correctly) the sink and bidet and a faint footprint on the bathmat. That was it.

 

[yeti101]

That's not exactly what I'd call a watertight argument then, is it? Knowing nothing about the matter you kind of sort of think maybe he wouldn't do that... I'm pretty sure it's going to be tough to get from there to proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Were you under the impression that there were obvious signs in the bathroom that a murder had been committed, perhaps comparable in obviousness to a dead body in a pool of blood?

If so that's actually not right. There was a small amount of blood in (if I recall correctly) the sink and bidet and a faint footprint on the bathmat. That was it.

and the giant turd don't forget that. Also the broken window & ransacked room

why do you think he covered the body and locked the door?

 

[platonov]

Hey, lawyer - leave those wolves alone.

Well yes, but there's independent evidence that Mignini is a fruit loop who sees unnecessarily complicated Satanic conspiracies that don't exist.

There's also the small problem of the total lack of evidence for more than one person being involved.


Why does it seem to you that those are the actions of someone else not RG?

See Link

 

[yeti101]

See Link

does your post mean the defence concede there was more than 1 person

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

and the giant turd don't forget that.

I don't know about you but if I come home to a shared property and find a number two in the bowl, I don't immediately think that someone's been murdered.

Also the broken window & ransacked room

They called the police as soon as they noticed that, didn't they? Sounds pretty much like the normal thing to do in that situation.

why do you think he covered the body and locked the door?

This is a manoeuvre we call "shifting the burden of proof". It's where you make a claim, as you have done, and when challenged instead of supporting your claim you try to get the other person to do the work for you.

You said "Covering the body & closing/locking the door is at odds with how he left the bathroom. On the one hand we have organized but on the other disorganized." Why are these two acts contradictory enough to make multiple attackers more likely than one attacker doing these things? Your claim, your burden of proof.

 

[RandyN]

I just don't understand how several posters at PMF seemed to think that Mignini was just casually mentioning this in response to a question and was in no way implying guilt by this mark or implying that Amanda was hiding the mark. Some of the things I highlighted in my posts that were said by Mignini must be embarrassing to those on the side of guilt.

Ya think? They pretty much trashed you and your comments after you left. Peggy said something to the effect of Rose can keep her useless comments off my board...or some such.

Pmf'ers are blinded by hate. No amount of fact presented in indisputable numbers of ways will change what they think. Any simple mind could easily see what Mignini was saying and implying. He states it in several different ways and each time it is clear he thinks AK had a wound that she made great effort to hide. He even states that Laura noticed it. He certainly implies that this wound is an indication of a battle AK was in...the proof is in her effort to hide this.

Ive seen lots of video and many pics with AK wearing open neck (not turtle neck) shirts so Mignini lies when he says she hides this...just one more lie in a long line of lies by this convicted abuser of power.

 

[yeti101]

I don't know about you but if I come home to a shared property and find a number two in the bowl, I don't immediately think that someone's been murdered.



They called the police as soon as they noticed that, didn't they? Sounds pretty much like the normal thing to do in that situation.



This is a manoeuvre we call "shifting the burden of proof". It's where you make a claim, as you have done, and when challenged instead of supporting your claim you try to get the other person to do the work for you.

You said "Covering the body & closing/locking the door is at odds with how he left the bathroom. On the one hand we have organized but on the other disorganized." Why are these two acts contradictory enough to make multiple attackers more likely than one attacker doing these things? Your claim, your burden of proof.

in a murder scene everything has a reason. Either consciously or subconsciously. Covering the body & locking the door doesn't serve any practical purpose for RG there's other major signs in the house of an intrusion so why bother?

 

[RandyN]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_493654dd97ed122621.jpg[/qimg]

Not only does this photo show no skin breakage...but it also shows that AK had multiple ear piercing's...I believe the number is 8 per each ear.

 

[platonov]

does your post mean the defence concede there was more than 1 person

Click on the link - 'half of Italy' apparently.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

what her lawyer said about the withholding of DNA evidence

When the defense relies on the testimony of convicts hoping to get some sort of benefit, there's a scent of desperation.

lionking,

What you you make of the story that Katody Matrass brought to our attention?

 

[RandyN]

Is she listed as an "official"? It seem like an odd choice of words to use to describe her, particularly in the context of my asking Chris C why she was "non official". What are you trying to convey by describing her as an "official"? Same question to Chris C. for "non official".

Lets see. 12 plus interrogators w/ interpreter questioned AK on 11/5-11/6.

At trial AK describes her interrogation which includes a part where the interpreter tells her about how she may be repressing memories just like she did when she broke her arm or whatever. Then she tells her to imagine...
At some point AK is hit two times in the back of the head.

Now comes the slander case against AK filed by five individuals. What would you call her?

I would call her a police interpreter.

 

[RandyN]

and the giant turd don't forget that. Also the broken window & ransacked room

why do you think he covered the body and locked the door?

Somewhere I read or saw a video perhaps (I simply don’t recall now) but a profiler actually thought the person who covered the body (actually quite common) did so because it was their first time taking such violent action. Also she thought this was often the case with a young murderer. So she thought it is likely a young first time murderer who covers the body.

As for the locked door...that’s easy...one would want to delay discovery as long as possible. That’s the reason he took the phones as well...to delay discovery as long as possible.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

in a murder scene everything has a reason. Either consciously or subconsciously.

Everything has a reason, in and out of murder scenes.

However that doesn't mean we can make up any **** we like and call it "reasoning". We still have to show evidence or logical arguments for a claim we wish to put forward.

Covering the body & locking the door doesn't serve any practical purpose for RG there's other major signs in the house of an intrusion so why bother?

Seeing as it worked to (slightly) delay the discovery of the body and delay the ensuing police investigation, I'd say it did as a matter of fact serve a practical purpose and hence this is just plain wrong on the face of it.

You also have to remember that Rudy Guede does not have psychic powers and he does not know the future. At the time he left the house (22:00 or so most likely) he had no idea whether the body would be found later that night, the next day or for that matter next week. For all he knew someone could have come home minutes after he left, and in that case locking the door and covering the body might have bought him valuable time to establish an alibi, ditch the mobile phones and so on.