brazil84′s points 1, 2, and 3 are false in my opinion, I have insufficient knowledge about #4 (the allegedly postmortem removed bra) but my reaction is “so what?” and “how does the investigator know the bra wasn’t removed post-cut rather than postmortem?”), and here is my take on #5, the mop and bucket...
The allegation that Amanda and Rafael were found with a mop and bucket outside the crime scene apartment is reported on truejustice.org (which has been accused of bias in some of the comments here.) Truejustice.org claims to be paraphrasing a judge’s statements about pretrial hearings. This alleged fact apparently did not come up in the actual trial. In the actual trial, Rafael’s maid said she found a mop and bucket underneath the sink at his apartment, and said he explained that they had cleaned up some leaked water. The maid testified that there was a clear liquid in the bucket. My wild guess at the truth here is that indeed Amanda and/or Rafael had taken a mop and bucket from Amanda’s apartment to Rafael’s apartment to clean up a leak, and the maid saw it when she came in the morning (she cleaned around 11:00 on certain days, as I recall.) And then, possibly, and unfortunately for them, Amanda or Rafael brought the mop back to Amanda’s apartment shortly before the police arrived. But your guess is as good as mine.
One thing I stumbled across was this comment to a blog:
“There is one simple reason that I believe that Amanda and her boyfriend are both guilty of some involvement in this crime: they were at the apartment the next morning with a bucket of bleach. Please explain away her guilt under this “circumstance.”″
I think that’s pretty funny, or at least it would be if the freedom of two individuals weren’t at stake. No evidence of bleach, by the way.
brazil84′s points 1, 2, and 3 are false in my opinion
Well, do you agree that one of the residents of the flat stated that (1) she left her room without clothing strewn all over it; and (2) there were valuables in plain view which were not taken?
Do you agree that a second floor window was broken? Do you agree that the same window was visible from the street?
In short, I would like to know exactly where you disagree with the points I raised.
And please don’t simply offer explanations for these things based on the evidence in its totality. I raised these points to show that there was physical crime scene evidence which supports reasonable suspicion of Knox and Sollecito.
And then, possibly, and unfortunately for them, Amanda or Rafael brought the mop >back to Amanda’s apartment shortly before the police arrived
Again, please keep in mind that I raised these points with respect to the issue of whether there were grounds to suspect Knox and Sollecito based on the crime scene evidence.
If you would like to jump to a discussion of Knox’s (and Sollecito’s) guilt or innocence based on all the evidence in its totality, that’s fine, but in that case we need to consider ALL the evidence, which includes evidence that was subsequently developed against Knox and Sollecito.
I agree that truejustice.org reported that one of the residents stated that she left her room without clothing strewn about and that she left valuables in plain sight that were not taken. I fail to see the relevance to Amanda, especially if the valuables were not clearly valuable or were easily traceable (e.g., the valuables could have been jewelry, which the murderer may have believed risky to fence or believed to be worthless costume jewelry.) Cash was taken.
I agree that a second floor window was broken and that there was easy access to said window from the side/trellis. I fail to see the relevance to Amanda.
You are implicitly referencing the glass-on-clothes argument. I am unmoved by this evidence that the window was broken from the inside because:
Glass fragments could wind up on top of clothes even if the window was broken from the outside. The clothes weren’t strewn about before the incident, so, if the glass were broken from the outside then the clothes would have been strewn about after the glass fragments were on the floor, allowing fragments to roll up on top of clothes.
The murderer’s objective after the crime seems to have been to delay discovery of the body. The murderer went into the bathroom outside the victim’s room to clean himself, then went back into the victim’s room, locked the door, and exited through the window. Therefore, even if the window was broken from the inside, which I really, really doubt, it makes sense from the murderer’s perspective. Amanda and her boyfriend, on the other hand, sped the discovery of the body by calling the police (although, ironically, other police were already on their way.)
I’m kind of assuming the victim had a European style door lock, which can only be locked from inside, rather than American style door lock, which can be locked before exiting. But if it’s true that it was a lock-from-inside style lock, then there is something wrong with the prosecutors. The prosecutors implied there was no way to get in or out of this room through the window (which wasn’t true, but never mind), so what happened to the criminal in their estimation? Did he teleport out?
Regardless of whether a break-in was actually staged (I don’t care), have you ever had your home burgled? I have; they took a few dollars worth of laundry quarters in plain sight, rummaged through some random areas (some drawers, shelves, under the bed, and neglected to take anything else, including electronics, cheap jewelry, and a few hundred dollars cash in a desk drawer.
brazil84′s points 1, 2, and 3 are false in my opinion, I have insufficient knowledge about #4 (the allegedly postmortem removed bra) but my reaction is “so what?” and “how does the investigator know the bra wasn’t removed post-cut rather than postmortem?”), and here is my take on #5, the mop and bucket...
The allegation that Amanda and Rafael were found with a mop and bucket outside the crime scene apartment is reported on truejustice.org (which has been accused of bias in some of the comments here.) Truejustice.org claims to be paraphrasing a judge’s statements about pretrial hearings. This alleged fact apparently did not come up in the actual trial. In the actual trial, Rafael’s maid said she found a mop and bucket underneath the sink at his apartment, and said he explained that they had cleaned up some leaked water. The maid testified that there was a clear liquid in the bucket. My wild guess at the truth here is that indeed Amanda and/or Rafael had taken a mop and bucket from Amanda’s apartment to Rafael’s apartment to clean up a leak, and the maid saw it when she came in the morning (she cleaned around 11:00 on certain days, as I recall.) And then, possibly, and unfortunately for them, Amanda or Rafael brought the mop back to Amanda’s apartment shortly before the police arrived. But your guess is as good as mine.
One thing I stumbled across was this comment to a blog:
I think that’s pretty funny, or at least it would be if the freedom of two individuals weren’t at stake. No evidence of bleach, by the way.
Well, do you agree that one of the residents of the flat stated that (1) she left her room without clothing strewn all over it; and (2) there were valuables in plain view which were not taken?
Do you agree that a second floor window was broken? Do you agree that the same window was visible from the street?
In short, I would like to know exactly where you disagree with the points I raised.
And please don’t simply offer explanations for these things based on the evidence in its totality. I raised these points to show that there was physical crime scene evidence which supports reasonable suspicion of Knox and Sollecito.
Again, please keep in mind that I raised these points with respect to the issue of whether there were grounds to suspect Knox and Sollecito based on the crime scene evidence.
If you would like to jump to a discussion of Knox’s (and Sollecito’s) guilt or innocence based on all the evidence in its totality, that’s fine, but in that case we need to consider ALL the evidence, which includes evidence that was subsequently developed against Knox and Sollecito.
I agree that truejustice.org reported that one of the residents stated that she left her room without clothing strewn about and that she left valuables in plain sight that were not taken. I fail to see the relevance to Amanda, especially if the valuables were not clearly valuable or were easily traceable (e.g., the valuables could have been jewelry, which the murderer may have believed risky to fence or believed to be worthless costume jewelry.) Cash was taken.
I agree that a second floor window was broken and that there was easy access to said window from the side/trellis. I fail to see the relevance to Amanda.
You are implicitly referencing the glass-on-clothes argument. I am unmoved by this evidence that the window was broken from the inside because:
Glass fragments could wind up on top of clothes even if the window was broken from the outside. The clothes weren’t strewn about before the incident, so, if the glass were broken from the outside then the clothes would have been strewn about after the glass fragments were on the floor, allowing fragments to roll up on top of clothes.
The murderer’s objective after the crime seems to have been to delay discovery of the body. The murderer went into the bathroom outside the victim’s room to clean himself, then went back into the victim’s room, locked the door, and exited through the window. Therefore, even if the window was broken from the inside, which I really, really doubt, it makes sense from the murderer’s perspective. Amanda and her boyfriend, on the other hand, sped the discovery of the body by calling the police (although, ironically, other police were already on their way.)
I’m kind of assuming the victim had a European style door lock, which can only be locked from inside, rather than American style door lock, which can be locked before exiting. But if it’s true that it was a lock-from-inside style lock, then there is something wrong with the prosecutors. The prosecutors implied there was no way to get in or out of this room through the window (which wasn’t true, but never mind), so what happened to the criminal in their estimation? Did he teleport out?
From the room which was ransacked? If so, this would change my assessment of that aspect of the staging issue.
It seems you are under the impression that the ransacking and broken window were in the victim’s bedroom. As far as I know, that’s incorrect.
Regardless of whether a break-in was actually staged (I don’t care), have you ever had your home burgled? I have; they took a few dollars worth of laundry quarters in plain sight, rummaged through some random areas (some drawers, shelves, under the bed, and neglected to take anything else, including electronics, cheap jewelry, and a few hundred dollars cash in a desk drawer.
Never (as far as I know).