Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Losing bra clasp.


The word to use is CHOSE to leave the bra clasp behind. They didn't LOSE anything. It was there in front of their eyes and it was a decision they made not to collect it.

Don't perpetuate the scientific police myth. "oooops, we LOST the bra clasp! It was sooo small though, so easy to misplace and overlook"

:(
 
Last edited:
The word to use is CHOSE to leave the bra clasp behind. They didn't LOSE anything. It was there in front of their eyes and it was a decision they made not to collect it.

Don't perpetuate the scientific police myth. "oooops, we LOST the bra clasp! It was sooo small though, so easy to misplace and overlook"

:(

Well, depending on how low an opinion of Stefanoni you happen to have, you might or might not believe that they did leave it behind.

In this case like others, the general level of incompetence they display makes it very hard to substantiate suspicions that in particular cases we are looking at corruption rather than incompetence.
 
oops vs. choice

Well, depending on how low an opinion of Stefanoni you happen to have, you might or might not believe that they did leave it behind.

In this case like others, the general level of incompetence they display makes it very hard to substantiate suspicions that in particular cases we are looking at corruption rather than incompetence.


That's not really the choice I'm suggesting in this case. It's not corruption vs. incompetence, it is instead OOPS vs. Choice. It was a choice. IF the bra clasp was the only item of clothing left behind I could believe that it was an honest mistake. It wasn't even close to the only item though. They left, as I keep annoying people by repeating, many items behind. It can not be an oops and can only be a choice.

Why that choice was made is debatable. Was it due to incompetence or general callous disregard? both? Not sure, but I would like to get everyone to understand and change their language used about this. It was NOT an oops. They did not forget, it did not get lost. They chose, for whatever reason, not to collect all of MK's clothing and that includes the bra clasp.

A third option is that they brought the bra clasp back to the cottage with them to 'find it'. I don't really believe that, although the exact moment of discovery is not on tape.
 
Last edited:
That's not really the choice I'm suggesting in this case. It's not corruption vs. incompetence, it is instead OOPS vs. Choice. It was a choice. IF the bra clasp was the only item of clothing left behind I could believe that it was an honest mistake. It wasn't even close to the only item though. They left, as I keep annoying people by repeating, many items behind. It can not be an oops and can only be a choice.

Why that choice was made is debatable. Was it do to incompetence or general callous disregard? both? Not sure, but I would like to get everyone to understand and change their language used about this. It was NOT an oops. They did not forget, it did not get lost. They chose, for whatever reason, not to collect all of MK's clothing and that includes the bra clasp.

A third option is that they brought the bra clasp back to the cottage with them to 'find it'. I don't really believe that, although the exact moment of discovery is not on tape.

I don't really believe they took the clasp away with them, deliberately wiped it with something of Raffaele's and brought it back, but I don't really believe that they did not do so either. Which is a problem, since the goal of a good investigation should be to convince the court that no shenanigans took place, not to merely leave the court unsure.

The astounding convenience of the find given the dire straits the prosecution case was in at the time, the fact that it sticks out like a sore thumb amidst the otherwise total lack of any evidence linking Raffaele to the crime in any way at all, the fact that the moment of discovery wasn't recorded and the fact that bra clasp apparently wandered around the room adds up to a fairly suspicious set of circumstances.

The means, motive and opportunity for a rigged result were definitely there - no question whatsoever about that. The fact that afterwards the bra clasp joined the collection of pieces of evidence which have been "accidentally" destroyed in police custody (along with the hard drives and the tape of Amanda's interview they claim they never made in the first place due to budget cuts) adds to my suspicions.

The fact that Stefanoni was in committee meetings with Mignini during the course of the investigation (which I wasn't aware of until recently) also makes me raise my eyebrows since I'd perhaps-naively assumed that the people doing the forensics would be at arm's length from Mignini. She can't paint a picture of herself as a disinterested scientist in an ivory tower in Rome, just analysing the samples that get sent in. She was an active participant in the prosecution process, or at least it looks that way.

Add it all up, and it's a long way from being proof of wrongdoing but in my view it's definitely grounds for grave suspicions about the provenance of the knife and bra clasp DNA results. I could not say that I was convinced beyond reasonable doubt that Stefanoni didn't falsify those test results.
 
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?

I could have shot of explaining it, though of course this is pure speculation.

Guede breaks the window and climbs up to enter the cottage about 8:50pm. He starts to have a look about Filomena's room, note that this room isn't actually ransacked, but gets the urge to go and so heads to the far bathroom to relieve himself.

While on the head he hears the front door open and realises that someone has come home, so after finishing up, he tries to sneak out the front door, meaning he doesn't flush, but finds that it is locked due to the latch being broken. He's now locked in.

He decides to confront the occupant and get the keys, so heads down to Meredith's room, they fight and he stabs her three times. At some point here he pulls up her t-shirt and removes her bra, then sexually attacks her as she bleeds to death.

Suddenly realising what he has done, he runs to the bathroom, get the towels and comes back to try and stop the bleeding, but realising it is too late he goes back to the bathroom, cleans off the blood on his hands and tries to wash the leg of his pants.

He then heads back to the bedroom, sees that Meredith is indeed dead, and covers her, perhaps as a mark of respect for the dead, perhaps to hide what he did from himself, or others, perhaps all of the above. He grabs the money, keys, and phones, locks the door to prevent discovery of the crime till at least the next morning, and heads out and down into the park where he would either accidently or deliberately use the phones just after 10pm.
 
I don't really believe they took the clasp away with them, deliberately wiped it with something of Raffaele's and brought it back, but I don't really believe that they did not do so either. Which is a problem, since the goal of a good investigation should be to convince the court that no shenanigans took place, not to merely leave the court unsure.

The astounding convenience of the find given the dire straits the prosecution case was in at the time, the fact that it sticks out like a sore thumb amidst the otherwise total lack of any evidence linking Raffaele to the crime in any way at all, the fact that the moment of discovery wasn't recorded and the fact that bra clasp apparently wandered around the room adds up to a fairly suspicious set of circumstances.

The means, motive and opportunity for a rigged result were definitely there - no question whatsoever about that. The fact that afterwards the bra clasp joined the collection of pieces of evidence which have been "accidentally" destroyed in police custody (along with the hard drives and the tape of Amanda's interview they claim they never made in the first place due to budget cuts) adds to my suspicions.

The fact that Stefanoni was in committee meetings with Mignini during the course of the investigation (which I wasn't aware of until recently) also makes me raise my eyebrows since I'd perhaps-naively assumed that the people doing the forensics would be at arm's length from Mignini. She can't paint a picture of herself as a disinterested scientist in an ivory tower in Rome, just analysing the samples that get sent in. She was an active participant in the prosecution process, or at least it looks that way.

Add it all up, and it's a long way from being proof of wrongdoing but in my view it's definitely grounds for grave suspicions about the provenance of the knife and bra clasp DNA results. I could not say that I was convinced beyond reasonable doubt that Stefanoni didn't falsify those test results.


Kevin,

You've laid that out soundly. I think the bra clasp is a shady deal also for all the reasons you list. I don't know if they went back specifically for the bra clasp or for more evidence. One of the socks was mixed up in the same rug the bra clasp was found under. It was also not far from its original location. They started taping on Dec 18th around 11:00 a.m. and didn't 'find' the bra clasp until about 2:00 p.m. That is a really long set up if they went in with a plan. There were enough items left at the scene that would have worked for the same purpose. They could have found Raffaele's DNA on the cuff of a sock or on the blue jacket for example. I tend to think that they simply collected things they left behind and if any shenanigans occurred it happened at the lab in a 'sciencey' way. The knife is similar. It was evidence created in the lab or contamination. The bra clasp is very suspicious.


Patrizia Stefanoni
"I'll fix you, my pretty, with my faked DNA."

 
The fact that Stefanoni was in committee meetings with Mignini during the course of the investigation (which I wasn't aware of until recently) also makes me raise my eyebrows since I'd perhaps-naively assumed that the people doing the forensics would be at arm's length from Mignini. She can't paint a picture of herself as a disinterested scientist in an ivory tower in Rome, just analysing the samples that get sent in. She was an active participant in the prosecution process, or at least it looks that way.


I would like to hear more about this. Didn't Randy N bring it up? How is this information known?
 
I could have shot of explaining it, though of course this is pure speculation.

Guede breaks the window and climbs up to enter the cottage about 8:50pm. He starts to have a look about Filomena's room, note that this room isn't actually ransacked, but gets the urge to go and so heads to the far bathroom to relieve himself.

While on the head he hears the front door open and realises that someone has come home, so after finishing up, he tries to sneak out the front door, meaning he doesn't flush, but finds that it is locked due to the latch being broken. He's now locked in.

He decides to confront the occupant and get the keys, so heads down to Meredith's room, they fight and he stabs her three times. At some point here he pulls up her t-shirt and removes her bra, then sexually attacks her as she bleeds to death.

Suddenly realising what he has done, he runs to the bathroom, get the towels and comes back to try and stop the bleeding, but realising it is too late he goes back to the bathroom, cleans off the blood on his hands and tries to wash the leg of his pants.

He then heads back to the bedroom, sees that Meredith is indeed dead, and covers her, perhaps as a mark of respect for the dead, perhaps to hide what he did from himself, or others, perhaps all of the above. He grabs the money, keys, and phones, locks the door to prevent discovery of the crime till at least the next morning, and heads out and down into the park where he would either accidently or deliberately use the phones just after 10pm.

The police / prosecutor (can't remember who exactly right now, sorry), claimed that only a woman would cover the body. Which is unbelievable- if you're going to base an investigation on profiling, at least do a bit of googling and get to know the basics of profiling, which says that any young or inexperienced offender is more likely to cover a body. Rudy was both young and it was his first time.
 
I enjoy the discussion and many times I learn something I did not know or see an opinion or perspective on something I have not seen before. Those that are willing to listen to other opinions, to learn new things, or to change their minds about things are still around.
Don't mind me, your stamina is clearly greater than mine.
 
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.
The problem as always is that in order to sustain your interpretation you have to rely on deductions based on your idea of what is going on in Mignini's head. You're never going to reach an agreement with anybody who doesn't share your view of him. It's a pity the interviewer didn't ask a clarifying question. As with everything else, the text as it stands is capable of supporting multiple interpretations.
 
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.
She was working with/for the police, so I'm happy enough with "police interpreter". I'm not pushing a choice of words. It just seems odd that one poster is saying that she wasn't an official interpreter and intends something negative, while others call her an official and mean something negative. Can it be both, or is someone wrong?
 
Last edited:
Did not do

the big problem with bra clasp, it only had a small bit of DNA of Raffaele on it so small, that it could only tested once.
Where was the rest of his DNA in the room that Meredith was murder.
I think that they did take the clasp away with them first time around.
But do not for get Raffaele, was Amanda alibi, and Amanda, was Raffaele alibi.
the police had to brake this up, so they could take this case to court.
So in the end all it boils down to was 3 1/2 years in jail and counting, for some thing these young ( at the time ) did not do.
 
The police / prosecutor (can't remember who exactly right now, sorry), claimed that only a woman would cover the body. Which is unbelievable- if you're going to base an investigation on profiling, at least do a bit of googling and get to know the basics of profiling, which says that any young or inexperienced offender is more likely to cover a body. Rudy was both young and it was his first time.

What I read tends to indicate that covering the body is likely a sign of remorse, as would getting the towels to stop the bleeding, which Rudy admits to doing.

Whenever you have any signs of remorse after the crime, like covering the victim up with clothes, meaning that the killer was trying to eliminate the assault or feeling disgust over his actions, there is likely to be a spillover into his post-offense behavior.

Page 34 of The Crime classification manual states:

Other forms of undoing may include the offender's washing up, cleaning the body, covering the victim's face, or completely covering the body. The offender engages in these activities not because he is trying to hide the body but because he may be feeling some degree of remorse

On February, 16, 2002, Patricia Lopez-Vargas was discovered dead by friends inside Morales-Bautista's apartment. It was further determined by Denver Homicide Detectives that Lopez-Vargas was the victim of a beating, which caused severe trauma and eventually death. Moreover, the crime scene showed signs of undoing. Lopez-Vargas body was found inside the bedroom of the apartment, lying on the bed, covered with a sheet. Therefore, the covering of the body signifies remorse and personation between the killer and his victim.
 
Don't mind me, your stamina is clearly greater than mine.

I am glad you are back in the discussion.

The big thing for me on the break in is the high resolution photo of the rock partially in the bag on the floor. Little bits of glass and rock from the impact with the floor are clearly seen, the straps in the bag are pulled through the paper in several places consistent with the rock falling there and carrying the bag to the ground. Staging that seems to me to be highly improbable.

The location of most of the items appears to me to be where most of the items were left and not consistent with a ransacking at all but rather consistent with a messy room. Glass was on top of these things simply because these things were there when the window was broken. Filomena's statements that she was getting ready for an outing, was already late and in a hurry, and that her memory was not clear are also indications that the room was in a sorry state when she left.

The broken glass that carried all the way to the night stand in the Massei theory would require an almost sideways splatter of the glass for the held open to the side to stage a glass breaking theory. The defense tested the theory with video that the window was broken from a rock entering from outside and the glass is consistent with that theory. The prosecution never tested their theory and yet it is one of the main pieces of evidence used against Amanda and Raffaele. The entire story of their involvement rests on the proof that the break in was staged and the rest of the theory stands on top of this basis. Yet the foundation has never been proven, making the rest speculation, in my opinion.
 
She was working with/for the police, so I'm happy enough with "police interpreter". I'm not pushing a choice of words. It just seems odd that one poster is saying that she wasn't an official interpreter and intends something negative, while others call her an official and mean something negative. Can it be both, or is someone wrong?

One can be an Offical without being an official interpreter. Being a police worker makes her an Official, but that doesn't mean that her job there was to be an interpreter. The fact she took an interogator's role by her own admission in court would indicate that she wasn't doing a true interpreter's role, that of just translation.
 
Don't mind me, your stamina is clearly greater than mine.

In the past year there have also been some fantastic posts on the case. I had even considered putting these together in a new article and posting them at http://knoxarchives.blogspot.com/ and may still do so at some point so if any of you have a favorite post that you want included, let me know. Here are a few of mine:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6810625&postcount=2690
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6514592&postcount=13499
http://www.injusticeinperugiaforum.org/post7818.html#p7818
 
Shuttlt
The police inteperter, should have stop doing her translation at 1.45am on the 6th of nov.
The America embassy should have been inform at 1.45am.
Ak and RS, became suspects at that time, if the embassy did not reply or there was no one around the interrogation should have stopped, untill an interperter that was appoinded, by the "American embassy", with a lawyer Appointed, by the "American embassy",arrived.
RS would only need a "lawyer", and you can bet your boots he would have the best.
Mignini and the police force, in Perugia broke every rule in the book, that was there to protect them.
As the true saying goes, you can bend the rules but you must not break them.
That means stay in the book of rules.
 
Shuttlt
The police inteperter, should have stop doing her translation at 1.45am on the 6th of nov.
The America embassy should have been inform at 1.45am.
Ak and RS, became suspects at that time, if the embassy did not reply or there was no one around the interrogation should have stopped, untill an interperter that was appoinded, by the "American embassy", with a lawyer Appointed, by the "American embassy",arrived.
RS would only need a "lawyer", and you can bet your boots he would have the best.
Mignini and the police force, in Perugia broke every rule in the book, that was there to protect them.
As the true saying goes, you can bend the rules but you must not break them.
That means stay in the book of rules.
Is this in response to my asking about "official"/"non official" interpreters. It seems like an answer to a somewhat different question. Surely the interpreter was either official, or she wasn't. Was Mignini not an official prosecutor because you think he did some things he shouldn't? Were the police not official police?

As for the rest of it... has anything new happened on the 'when did she become a suspect/should the 5:45am statement have been taken' front? Otherwise, this is an old argument which only leads to frustration. I wasn't aware though that the interpreter was involved in the 5:45am statement. If that's true I guess it's new (to me anyway :-) ).
 
One can be an Offical without being an official interpreter. Being a police worker makes her an Official, but that doesn't mean that her job there was to be an interpreter.
So, it is the case that she wasn't hired as an interpreter? If she wasn't actually a police woman either, why did they hire her?

The fact she took an interogator's role by her own admission in court would indicate that she wasn't doing a true interpreter's role, that of just translation.
By the same token, were the police not performing their proper function and hence not officially police? This feels like a no true scotsman argument. No official interpreter ever steps beyond their role, hence she can't have been an official interpreter.
 
The police / prosecutor (can't remember who exactly right now, sorry), claimed that only a woman would cover the body. Which is unbelievable- if you're going to base an investigation on profiling, at least do a bit of googling and get to know the basics of profiling, which says that any young or inexperienced offender is more likely to cover a body. Rudy was both young and it was his first time.


I've always assumed that after the murder (and perhaps after he had ejaculated), Guede calmed down and continued his search for cash or other untracable valuables (which would not include items such as computers).

I imagine he felt rather uncomfortable searching Meredith's room with her bloody corpse in plain view on the floor, so he covered her with the quilt.

Just surmise, but as likely as any other explanation, and not as silly as asserting that it's a "clue" indicating that a female was involved.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom