Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
August 22, 2014, 03:01:45 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
  Home Help Calendar Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 195
76  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: Dorian YATES trining in 1996, 4 days out on: February 06, 2014, 12:35:24 PM
Steve W doing his monthly workout.
77  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: amanda knox found guilty on: February 04, 2014, 11:34:58 AM
What a disgrace... The ultimate trial by media. Jurors asking the judge if they should take into account what they had seen on TV? Are they kidding?

Italian judge who convicted Knox investigated for media comments

ROME (Reuters) - Italy's justice minister ordered an investigation on Monday into comments to the media by the judge who reinstated murder convictions for U.S. student Amanda Knox and her former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito.

Alessandro Nencini, who last Thursday sentenced Knox to 28 years and six months and Italian Sollecito to 25 years in jail for the 2007 murder of British student Meredith Kercher, spoke to several Italian newspapers the morning after the verdict.

Sollecito's lawyers said the comments showed the judge had been biased against their client and had violated the legal maxim that jury deliberations remain secret. They asked Italy's judicial governing body to consider disciplinary action and queried whether the court's decision was still valid.

Nencini's comments were made before the court issued its full judgment, the 'motivations' that in Italy are published within 90 days of a verdict, explaining how the court reached its decision. But he appeared to hint at what the document would contain.

He indicated that Sollecito's decision not to be questioned in court might have influenced the decision, described how the jurors asked him to clarify things they had seen about the case on TELEVISION!, and said the crime happened in "a night between young people" when "no one had anything to do".

Justice Minister Annamaria Cancellieri ordered an "initial investigation" into the comments. Nencini defended himself in further comments to press, saying he had spoken off-the-cuff and had not intended to appraise the strategy of the defense.

78  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: Someone sent me this - is it accurate? on: February 04, 2014, 02:07:27 AM
Many tribes lived comfortably in areas that gun toting, food carrying white men perished within days.

Must have figured something out.
79  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: Generation Iron update on: February 03, 2014, 04:46:50 PM
didnt that deal with hula fall thru  Huh
yeah after I posted that in November it did.
80  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: amanda knox found guilty on: February 03, 2014, 02:22:25 PM
That post has more holes than Swiss cheese.
81  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: Arnold & his new girlfriend in Austria on: February 01, 2014, 08:22:07 PM
makes you wonder why he ever even fucked her
she was there...
82  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: 2014 LA Fit Expo - Getbigger confronts Dave 'Mad Max'? on: January 31, 2014, 05:52:26 PM
So during the argument they both did a 180 rotation so that the fence was behind them and then it wasn't?
83  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: amanda knox found guilty on: January 31, 2014, 02:07:41 PM
Two cold blooded killers planning their next move or two kids in shock and comforting each other right after the body is discovered by police that THEY called.
84  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: amanda knox found guilty on: January 31, 2014, 02:01:04 PM
This guy sums it up...

"The Meredith Kercher murder is one of those mirrors that reflects the prejudices of whoever is looking into it. There is no physical evidence and no credible motive, and yet an egotistical prosecutor is blaming Amanda Knox anyway. In the USA, this would only happen if she were black. Perhaps partying American college kids are so hated in Italy that Amanda will be treated as blacks are treated in the USA, and she will be convicted not because of the evidence but because of general resentment of shallow rich Americans. Personally, from what I've read I don't like Amanda Knox. She sounds spoiled, naive, and shallow. But that's not a crime. I loathe the prosecutor, who has a counterpart in every city in the USA - a preening, intellectually dishonest bully who cares more about making newspaper headlines than in serving justice. It's the same all over the world. Power and prejudice are the enemies of justice."
85  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: amanda knox found guilty on: January 31, 2014, 01:49:47 PM
Think about who the victim is... A foreigner.

A foreigner killed by another foreigner and caught the SAME day works out perfect for the cops and maintains the town's reputation (VERY important to Italians).
86  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: amanda knox found guilty on: January 31, 2014, 12:53:57 PM
Use some common sense people they wanted to blame Amanda because she was the ideal scapegoat.

She was the ideal scapegoat because by blaming her the investigators would prevent hysteria in Perugia about the presence of a killer who was entering people’s houses and was still free (the truth).

The thought that the crime came from a sex party gone wrong, and had been elicited by a foreign girl, would have reassured all the little old ladies in that town. The boyfriend wasn't a local so fuck him too.

87  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: amanda knox found guilty on: January 30, 2014, 08:57:43 PM
The Massei report was a joke and one of the big reasons the 1st appeal succeeded!

....And the appeals trial has changed everything. Judge Massei himself wrote in the report that the DNA evidence underpinned the rest of the case. Well, that evidence has been completely discredited.

During the original trial, Judge Massei wouldn't allow the defense to review the raw DNA files from which the police lab investigator drew her conclusions. (The same type of files which the prosecutors also tried to withhold in the Duke lacrosse false rape case.) Since that time, the new judge, who was appointed to handle the appeal, decided to appoint two independent forensic experts from the University of Rome. Those investigators wrote their own report which completely debunked the police lab's work. The only two pieces of physical evidence previously thought to link Amanda and Raffaele to the murder have now been completely discredited.

Also, during the appeal, the testimony of the only "eyewitness" turned out to be worthless -- he was a heroin addict and under the influence that very night., Also, he couldn't keep his nights straight. But IF anyone chose to believe him, he put Amanda and Raffaele OUTSIDE the cottage till 11:30 pm -- and the murder took place, according to evidence from the coroner's report, by 9:30.

So what are the prosecutors left with? Not a single bit of physical evidence that puts either Amanda or Raffaele inside the room where the murder took place. But the third defendant (who had no prior connection to either of the other two and spoke no English) had a history of bringing knives to his burglaries, left semen inside the victim, handprints, fingerprints and other physical evidence in the room; and stool in the toilet. The police collected dozens of pieces of physical evidence connected to Rudy Ruede in the room and not a single piece related to Amanda Knox. The only item connected to her boyfriend Raffaele -- according to your previously cited Massei report -- was a bra clasp. The independent experts appointed by the judge (not the defense) said there was so much contamination on the clasp -- so many alleles -- that almost any profile could have been found on it, including the JUDGE'S.

Just as in the Duke lacrosse case, this case has centered around a grandstanding prosecutor. And there is enough reasonable doubt to fly a 747 through. The only just outcome will be the immediate release of Amanda and Raffaele.
88  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: amanda knox found guilty on: January 30, 2014, 06:14:25 PM
You dimwits spend 20 hours a day on here and you can't read 5 pages in a row? Pathetic.
89  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: amanda knox found guilty on: January 30, 2014, 06:01:47 PM
jwb you may fuck right off with the copy and paste essays.

im not a fool, i did plenty reading on the case.

lol@ citing internet essays over evidence of what the govt has.

your verdict is it must be a gigantic justice error and failure(all the flaws didnt help to get her out for 4 years,how come)

my verdict is shes guilty.

how the us inteligentia has defended her is rather pathetic.

whatever comes its al good the bitch had unplesant 4 year stay in italy

the inbvestigator is a crackpot.ah yeah sure he is

takes a bigger man to admit when they are mistaken remember that.
90  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: amanda knox found guilty on: January 30, 2014, 06:00:35 PM
The Interrogation That Never Was
by, Steve Moore

Coerce:  To Achieve by force or threat
(Merriam –Webster Dictionary)
The word interrogation comes, ironically from the Latin root word “interrogatus”, which means “to ask”.  At no time in Amanda’s “interrogation” was any she truly ‘asked’ anything, or was any information truly solicited.  This interrogation was simply planned coercion to force her to say what the police needed her to say.  No true “interrogation” took place.  What took place bore more resemblance to the Inquisition than to an interrogation.

I have said in an earlier article that if any FBI Agents who reported to me had conducted this interview, I would have had them prosecuted.  I stand by that.

In my quarter-century with the FBI, I became very adept at interrogation (or ‘interviewing’; the Bureau’s kinder and gentler phrase for interrogation.)  In the majority of my cases that went to trial, I had already obtained a confession.  On one occasion, I listened and took notes for eight hours as a murderer confessed in disturbing detail.  On another occasion, I interviewed a man for 8 hours before he confessed and provided corroborating information on a murder he had assisted in.

In the instance of the latter confession, I met with the suspect at about noon at the FBI office.  I read him what are known by the public as “Miranda Rights”, and then immediately took him to lunch at a hole-in-the-wall restaurant down the street.  The conversation got more serious as the evening went on, and I ordered take-out for dinner.  Later that evening, the suspect tearfully confessed.  However, because the interview went 8 hours, and occurred in the FBI office, the United States Attorney’s Office refused to enter the confession into evidence because they believed any federal court would consider the circumstances of the confession “inherently coercive”.   The individual was never prosecuted for that crime.  This is the diligence with which federal courts protect an individual from even possible coercion.

Amanda Knox was interrogated for 8 hours.  Overnight.  Without food or water.  In a police station.  In a foreign country.  In a foreign language.  By a dozen different officers.  Without being allowed a lawyer.

In my cases in the FBI, I have seen agents conduct masterful interviews, and I have had to deal with intelligence operatives of other countries torturing suspects.  I know my way around good and bad interrogations.

The Inquisition Amanda Knox experienced in Perugia was no more legally or morally defensible than the Salem Witch Trials.  No rational person should believe that the results of what she went through are reliable evidence.

How many hours do you work a week?  If you’re like almost everybody, you work 40 hours in five days.  In the five days after the murder of Meredith Kercher, Amanda Knox was interrogated by detectives for 43 hours.  Think about that for a minute.  That’s not a number in dispute.  43 hours of sitting at a table being badgered by questions from detectives in five days.  8 hours a day for an entire work week.  In a foreign country.  In a foreign language.


Of even greater ignominy are the last eight hours of the interrogation.  This took place from 10:30 p.m. until 6:00 a.m.   All night.  Why would detectives schedule an interrogation overnight?  Detectives are for the most part different from other policemen in that their regular schedule is 8a-5p or 9a-5p or something similar.  Sure, they get called out in the middle of the night, but all things equal, unless you are in a department like NYPD or LAPD where a skeleton crew covers the evening shift; normal schedules for detectives are not overnight.

But that night, Amanda was interrogated all night.  And by not just one or two detectives, but by a dozen (12) detectives.  Again, the police not only do not dispute this, but they have entered this evidence into court.  Perugia has a population of approximately 165,000 people.  I live in a town of 100,000 and there are less than ½ a dozen detectives to cover the city, much less work an all-night shift.  Perugia had to call in resources from Rome to help that night.  It was not a spontaneous interrogation.  It was pre-planned, and pre-planned to be an all-nighter.

Why interrogate all night?  There are few legitimate reasons:

       ·  It’s a rapidly unfolding case where lives are at risk, such as a  bombing spree

       ·  It’s the only time the suspect is available

       ·  There is a deadline

If you are going to have 12 detectives available all night for an interrogation, you need to let them know well in advance.  You need to schedule them, to change their days off, etc.  You have to pay them overtime.  In the real world, 12 detectives all night is something that has to be signed off by higher-ups.  What does this tell us?  It tells us the interrogation was NOT a rapidly unfolding case where lives were at risk—they planned this interview well in advance, and INTENTIONALLY overnight.  They knew Amanda was available all day (as they had interviewed her for 35 hours in the past four days).  There was no deadline.  The lead detective in the case, Giobbi, had already said they “knew” Amanda was the murderer by this point.  So they did not believe there was a murderer on the loose “out there.” (And yet there was).

No, the reason they interrogated Amanda all night was to break her.  Not get the truth, not get answers, not make Perugia safer; but to break her so that she would say what they wanted her to say.

They used a technique that I unfortunately became aware of while serving overseas in counter-terrorism.  We used to call it “tag-teaming”.  I am aware of its use by intelligence/law enforcement officers of other countries.  It takes dozens of operatives/officers to make it work.  Two officers are assigned for approximately an hour at a time to the suspect.  Their prime responsibility is simply to keep the person awake and agitated.  They do this for only an hour, because it takes a lot out of the detectives.  After an hour, a fresh pair of “interrogators” come in.  Again, the questions they ask are secondary to their main task—keep the person awake and afraid.  By tag-teaming every hour, the interrogators remain fresh, energetic and on-task.  The suspect, however, becomes increasingly exhausted, confused by different questions from dozens of different interrogators, and prays for the interrogation to end.  In extreme cases, people can become so disoriented that they forget where they are.  Interrogation such as this for more than four days has resulted in death.

As evidence of the effectiveness of this technique, I provide excerpts from a de-classified CIA document published by Research Publication Woodbridge, CT 06525.  This document was from the Director of the CIA to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover in 1956, and described techniques for brainwashing used by Communists in North Korea:

________________________ ________________________ ____________________

MEMORANDUM FOR: The Honorable J. Edgar Hoover
Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation
SUBJECT : Brainwashing


5.  Induction of Fatigue.  This is a well-known device for breaking will power and critical powers of judgment.  Deprivation of sleep results in more intense psychological debilitation than does any other method of engendering fatigue.  The communists vary their methods.  "Conveyor belt" interrogation that last 50-60 hours will make almost any individual compromise, but there is danger that this will kill the victim. It is safer to conduct interrogations of 8-10 hours at night while forcing the prisoner to remain awake during the day.  Additional interruptions in the remaining 2-3 hours of allotted sleep quickly reduce the most resilient individual .

Fatigue, in addition to reducing the will to resist, also produces irritation……forgetfulness, and decreased ability to maintain orderly thought processes.

That is what happened to Amanda that night.  You do not need 12 detectives all night in a station in order to conduct a normal interrogation.  All you need are two.  It is an aberration for a detective not on the case to interview another detective’s subject.  It’s kind of like a car salesman cutting in on another salesman’s customer halfway through the deal.  So, they were there for a reason.


   1.  Elicitation is the attempt to determine information one does not already have.
   2.  Coercion is the attempt to cause a person to say or do something by force or threat.

If you’re trying to determine facts and truth, you want your suspect clear, lucid and awake.  If you want to coerce your suspect into saying what you want them to say, you want them disoriented, groggy and confused.

From the same CIA document on brainwashing:

“There is a major difference between preparation for elicitation and for brainwashing .  Prisoners exploited through elicitation must retain sufficient clarity of thought to be able to give coherent, factual accounts. In brainwashing , on the other hand, the first thing attacked is clarity of thought.”

What do you think the police were attempting to do that night?  Determine the truth?  Or force a scared American college girl to create a case for them?

Amanda was given nothing to eat or drink during the interrogation.  No coffee.  Nothing until she signed the statement they wanted her to sign.  The entire interrogation was in Italian, which she did not functionally speak at the time.  She was threatened with never seeing her parents again, with a 30 year prison sentence, and repeatedly called ‘stupid’.  Does any reasonable person really doubt she that she was also slapped in the head when the interrogators didn’t like what she said?  When she asked for a lawyer, she was told that a lawyer would only “make it worse” for her.


There are two reasons an interrogator stops an interrogation:

  1.  He/she gets what they want, or

  2.  He/she gives up.

If the interrogator gives up, there is no written statement by the suspect.  Therefore, if the interrogation ends with a signed statement, you know the interrogator got what they wanted, and can easily determine what that was.  And what did Amanda say that satisfied her inquisitors?  “I confusedly remember seeing Patrick come out of Meredith’s room”.   So what did they want?  They wanted to implicate Patrick Lumumba.

Amanda did not bring up the name Patrick Lumumba.  The police did.  And they repeatedly told her to “imagine” Patrick  and herself being at the cottage that night.

Amanda did not give in to the brainwashing.  But the police achieved enough with her to obtain a statement  that let them do what they had intended to do all along:  Arrest Patrick Lumumba.

But Amanda’s note the next day to police indicates that the techniques they used were effective nonetheless.  The same CIA document described the techniques used to brainwash a person, as well as the desired results.  If you compare Amanda’s note to the police just hours after her interrogation with the techniques and goals of brainwashing, the results speak for themselves.  (The excerpts from Amanda’s note are in italics):

“The most important aspect of the brainwashing process is the interrogation. The other pressures are designed primarily to help the interrogator achieve his goals. The following states are created systematically within the individual . These may vary in order, but all are necessary to the brainwashing process:”

1. A feeling of helplessness in attempting to deal with the impersonal machinery of control.

“Please don't yell at me because it only makes me more confused, which doesn't help anyone. I understand how serious this situation is, and as such, I want to give you this information as soon and as clearly as possible.”

“Honestly, I understand because this is a very scary situation. I also know that the police don't believe things of me that I know I can explain.”

“I have a clearer mind that I've had before, but I'm still missing parts, which I know is bad for me.”

"In regards to this "confession" that I made last night, I want to make clear that I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion. Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly.”

2. An initial reaction of "surprise."

“What I don't understand is why Raffaele, who has always been so caring and gentle with me, would lie about this.”[He hadn’t]

“My boyfriend has claimed that I have said things that I know are not true.” [He hadn’t]

3. A feeling of uncertainty about what is required of him.

“If there are still parts that don't make sense, please ask me. I'm doing the best I can, just like you are. Please believe me at least in that, although I understand if you don't.  All I know is that I didn't kill Meredith, and so I have nothing but lies to be afraid of.”

“Please don't yell at me because it only makes me more confused, which doesn't help anyone.”

4. A developing feeling of dependence upon the interrogator.

“I understand that the police are under a lot of stress, so I understand the treatment I received.”

“I'm doing the best I can, just like you are.”

5. A sense of doubt and loss of objectivity.

“The police have told me that they have hard evidence that places me at the house, my house, at the time of Meredith's murder. I don't know what proof they are talking about, but if this is true, it means I am very confused…”

“This is very strange, I know, but really what happened is as confusing to me as it is to everyone else.”

“I have been told there is hard evidence saying that I was at the place of the murder of my friend when it happened. This, I want to confirm, is something that to me, if asked a few days ago, would be impossible.”

6. Feelings of guilt.

7. A questioning attitude toward his own value-system.

8. A feeling of potential "breakdown," i.e.,that he might go crazy.

“However, it was under this pressure and after many hours of confusion that my mind came up with these answers.  In my mind I saw Patrik (sic) in flashes of blurred images.  I saw him near the basketball court.  I saw him at my front door.  I saw myself cowering in  the kitchen with my hands over my ears because in my head I could hear Meredith  screaming.  But I've said this many times so as to make myself clear: these things seem unreal to me, like a dream, and I am unsure if they are real things that happened  or are just dreams my head has made to try to answer the questions in my head and the questions I am being asked.”

“I'm very confused at this time. My head is full of contrasting ideas and I know I can be frustrating to work with for this reason. But I also want to tell the truth as best I can.”

"In these flashbacks that I'm having, I see Patrik (sic) as the murderer, but the way the truth feels in my mind, there is no way for me to have known…”

9. A need to defend his acquired principles.

“I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me that what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele's house.”

“Who is the REAL murder [sic]? This is particularly important because I don't feel I can be used as condemning testimone [sic] in this instance.”

10. A final sense of "belonging" (identification).

What the inquisitors did not achieve however, speaks volumes of Amanda’s character and innocence.  No matter how hard they tried, and how manipulative and coercive they were, Amanda repeatedly denied ANY involvement in the murder, and the police could develop no feelings of guilt in her.  This is not sociopathy, this is innocence.  Note that in her note, she expresses empathy for the officers who had just subjected her to this abomination.

Never once did she question her own innocence (value system).  And never did she experience any sense of identification with the accusations of the police.


This is an innocent college girl subjected to the most aggressive and heinous interrogation techniques the police could utilize (yet not leave marks.)  She became confused, she empathized with her captors, she doubted herself in some ways, but in the end her strength of character and her unshakable knowledge of her innocence carried her through.  It’s time that the real criminals were prosecuted.
91  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: amanda knox found guilty on: January 30, 2014, 05:57:09 PM
Luminol has been a powerful weapon of the prosecution in the Kercher murder case.  Luminol is a reliable, useful forensic tool.  But it is much like the sniper rifles I fired when on SWAT:  Used correctly, it can save the life of the innocent.  But used carelessly or incorrectly, it is brutally efficient at killing the innocent, not the guilty.  An inch or two is all that it takes to change it from savior to murderer; and that inch depends solely on the training and skill of the sniper.

THE BLEACH CLEAN-UP LIE:  Much of the evidence presented in this case is based on luminol test results.  You may be more familiar with luminol than you think.  You know those light-sticks they sell at rock concerts and for camping?  Luminol.  The way luminal works at a crime scene is this:

1.   A mixture of luminol powder and hydrogen peroxide is mixed in a spray bottle like you buy at the grocery store.
2.  The mixture is sprayed on areas where blood (or other substances) are expected to be.
3.  The mixture reacts to many things, but one of them is the iron in hemoglobin (a component of blood) which causes the mixture to glow.  The luminol, like the light stick, has a limited fluorescent life.  In the forensics application, the glow lasts about 30 seconds.
4.  On those areas where you get a “hit”, you photograph quickly, and then test the site for indicators of what the “hit” was.  You first test for the presence of blood, then if not blood; other substances.  If it is blood, you can then conduct a DNA test. (Luminol does not disrupt blood or DNA testing).
5.  Importantly, you take a control sample from a nearby area that did NOT fluoresce, so you can be certain that your tests are valid.
6. There is no difference in the fluorescent color of luminol, no matter what substance it is reacting with.  If it reacts with blood, it is blue.  If it reacts with bleach, it is the same color of blue.

Imagine for a minute a schoolroom chalkboard with a couple of footprints drawn on it in chalk.  Now, take an eraser and erase the prints.  This is a little what a bleach-cleaned crime scene looks like under luminol examination.   A crime scene cleaned with bleach wouldn’t have footprints or fingerprints; it would have wide swaths of bleach, many times in arcs that give away the tell-tale motions of cleaning and wiping, kind of like we used to see on chalk-board erasures.  You would see luminol reactions everywhere; it would look like a huge florescent blue paint spill.

This was not what the Polizia Scientifica found at Raffaele’s apartment on November 13.  They found approximately 14 luminol ‘hits’, and no blood.  And, no indications of a cleanup.  The crime scene investigators knew on November 13 from luminol tests that the scene wasn’t cleaned with bleach.  How can we be sure that the luminol ‘hits’ were not blood?  Because finding blood would be damaging evidence, and Mignini would have used it.  How do we know that the scene wasn’t cleaned with bleach?  Because of the 14 luminol ‘hits’, and the fact that a cleanup would be damaging evidence, and Mignini would have used it.

However, in a court filing on November 28, two weeks after the tests, Prosecutor Mignini alleged that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito cleaned both the cottage and Raffaele’s apartment with bleach.  He knew that to be untrue from luminol testing.  He had known for two weeks that no cleanup occurred at Raffaele’s cottage, but still insinuated it throughout the trial—knowing it to be a lie.

I have personally reviewed video of investigators searching for bleach and bleach receipts in Raffaele’s apartment about two days after the luminol tests there.  They found two bottles of bleach.  One unopened, the other nearly full; and no receipts for bleach purchase.

     ·  QUESTION:  Why would the police look for bleach and bleach receipts if the knew that no bleach                      cleanup occurred, and that no blood was ever in the apartment?

      ·  ANSWER:  The only possible reason to search for bleach or bleach receipts when you know no bleach                  cleanup occurred, and no blood was found, is to explain the lack of blood by inferring disingenuously                 (lying) that bleach was used.

THE LIE ABOUT THE FOOTPRINTS IN THE HALLWAY:   It was obvious from the murder scene that no cleanup had been undertaken in Meredith’s room.  But 6 weeks after the murder, the investigators returned to the cottage and did extensive luminol testing, which further proved that no bleach clean-up occurred in the cottage, as had been stated as fact (without proof) by Mignini in court filings on November 28th—three weeks earlier.

The prosecution in this case stated that many bare footprints of Amanda Knox were found in the house (but none in Meredith’s room)  Never was there any attempt to determine whether they were indeed Amanda’s as opposed to any of the other roommates.  Theoretically, they could have been old footprints of Meredith.  These footprints, however, were detected with luminol.  Recapping, now; after luminol detection, a forensic investigator then……

1.  Tests for blood (after all, that’s what you’re looking for), and
2.  Tests for DNA.  (If it IS blood, you want to know whose it is).

Patrizia Stafanoni of the Polizia Scientifica, who perpetrated this debacle, instead tested only for DNA.  Only for DNA?  You are looking for blood and you get a hit that could be blood or any of a dozen different substances, including bleach, and you don’t test to see if you hit the jackpot?  It begs the question of incompetence or intent.  Regardless, the DNA testing showed that whatever the substance was; Meredith’s DNA was not in it.

So even if it someone inexplicably believed it was blood, the prosecution’s own evidence proves that it could not have been the victim’s.

But Patrizia was not deterred by logic and fact.  In court, she said that she knew that the luminol stain was blood “…because of its color.”  Every trained forensic investigator (except, apparently Stefanoni) knows that luminol glows blue.  Only blue.  Not a different shade of blue for different substances…just blue.  What Stefanoni said, she knew to be false, or she was so incompetent that she should not have been allowed to destroy a crime scene.

What could have left the footprints, then?  Among the many things that we know reacts very strongly to luminol is bleach.  Even trace amounts of bleach will light-up luminol.  Amanda told the police that she came home that morning, took a shower and then looked for roommates in the house.  Amanda was in bare feet after leaving the shower.  Showers are routinely cleaned with substances that contain bleach.  The products are sprayed on the walls, and collect and pool invisibly on the shower floor.  Therefore, it would be almost incomprehensible for her not to have minute traces of bleach substances on the soles of her feet after standing in a shower cleaned by a modern cleaning product.  Remember, in Raffaele’s apartment, there were 14 luminol ‘hits’.  And where were nine of them?  In the bathroom.  Outside the shower.  And none were blood.  I would postulate that nearly every person in America and Italy who stepped out of a sanitary shower today left luminol-detectable footprints; including Mignini and Stefanoni.

As stated above, the prosecution never offered any evidence to prove that the luminol footprints belonged to Amanda. If we go along with the assumption made by the prosecution that the luminol prints were indeed Amanda’s, the evidence would prove the following:

1.  Amanda lived at the cottage.
2.  Amanda was not in the room where the murder occurred before, during or after the murder.
3.  Amanda never stepped in, or came in contact with Meredith Kercher’s blood.
4.  There was no bleach cleanup of the crime scene.
5. Amanda came in contact with a non-blood substance (probably a bleach-based cleaner), likely while taking a shower that morning, and she walked in exactly the places she told the police she walked.

In reality then, Stefanoni’s own incompetent investigation actually verifies Amanda’s account of her morning.

FINAL THOUGHTS:  Even the ‘directed’ investigation of the Polizia Scientifica could not detect a single footprint of Amanda in the murder room.  Not one.  A bunch of footprints were found in a non-blood substance outside the room, where she lived, (and having no relationship to Meredith at all), but not a single one in the murder room.  The police know a cleanup could NOT have happened.

So the footprints were never there to begin with.  Because Amanda wasn’t there.

In the U.S., this type of prosecutorial misconduct would almost certainly have resulted in a mistrial, and likely jail time for the prosecutor.  This is not to say that the Italian judicial system is corrupt.  There is no country in the world that does not have to deal with the occasional crooked cop or rogue prosecutor.  They know how to work the system.  America had a very prominent rogue in 2006.  But in that case, the authorities dropped all charges against the innocent and jailed the prosecutor.  It’s not whether a country is going to have to deal with this kind of corruption—it is when.  Of more importance is how that country reacts when it happens.  The action a country takes determines whether it is a country under laws or a vigilante society masquerading as a civilized nation.

One of the responsibilities of the FBI is to investigate police misconduct, and it is one of the more difficult investigations an FBI Agent can be assigned.  I myself have conducted some of these investigations.  I have seen the misconduct of police and prosecutors.  But I have never personally been involved in a case where the misconduct is as egregious and obvious as the Mignini actions in Perugia.  This was not a search for truth.  This was a crusade to convict.  It reminds me of that old joke about the crooked prosecutor; “I can convict anybody,” he said, “the innocent just take more time.”
92  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: amanda knox found guilty on: January 30, 2014, 05:55:26 PM
Evidence Collection
By, Steve Moore

The case against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito is centered on two pieces of evidence.  These two pieces are a knife and a bra clasp.  Their collection and interpretation defies logic.  The knife (by the prosecution’s own testimony) could not have inflicted 80% of the wounds on Meredith, and the bra clasp mysteriously appeared 6 weeks into the investigation.

From examination of the crime scene in Meredith’s room, it should have been obvious to any experienced or trained investigator that the rape and killing of Meredith Kercher was likely what is known as a “crime of passion.”  These crimes are unplanned, opportunistic crimes that usually occur spontaneously.

Some of the hallmarks of these crimes are highly disorganized crime scenes, where little, if any attempt has been made to conceal evidence or hide one’s identity.  No planning is evident. These are also sometimes called “clustered” crime scenes.  A clustered crime scene is a location where the initial confrontation, the attack, the rape and the murder occurred at the same location, sometimes all within one room.  Another hallmark of the crime of passion is that the murder weapon is almost always nearby or at hand.  Whether it is a blunt object, a kitchen knife, or a pair of scissors, the assailant usually avails himself of the nearest makeshift weapon he can find within arm’s reach.  Sometimes, the person carries a weapon with them habitually.  But rarely if ever do they bring a weapon with intent to use it to kill.  That is because the attacker hadn’t planned the crime.

Therefore, what an investigator should be looking for are any and ALL items which could inflict stabbing and/or slashing wounds.  The logical thought for a crime scene analyst would be that the murder knife in this case was obtained from inside the cottage where the murder occurred.  Stabbing wounds at the crime scene are so vague that simply by looking, an investigator cannot tell the difference between a letter-opener wound, a scissors wound, or a knife wound.  Had I conducted the search of the cottage, I would have collected (and have in my cases collected) every single weapon of the type I could find in the house.  This is “Investigations 101”.  What if the murderer got a letter opener from one of the OTHER girl’s rooms, wiped it off and returned it?  Do we not look in the other rooms?  Of course we do.

Yet the police did not seize a single knife, letter opener, scissors, screwdriver, nail file…ANYTHING from the murder cottage for testing.  Not one thing.  It is inconceivable that in a cottage where four women lived, there was not a kitchen knife, or a letter opener, or scissors, or anything  which might have been used.  It leads one to suspect an investigation intent on proving a theory, rather than searching for truth.

Possibly the reason that nothing was seized from the cottage was that even if Meredith’s DNA was found on an object there, it could not be used to implicate Amanda.  But if Meredith’s DNA was found in Raffaele’s apartment, then it would be powerful evidence.

Instead of taking anything from the cottage,  the police went to Raffaele’s apartment; a five-minute walk from the cottage.  A five minute walk is absolutely out of the question for the suspect in the frantic seconds a “crime of opportunity” would take.  Undaunted by the sheer lack of logic, they enter his kitchen, and open a drawer to find a utencil tray.  Jackpot!  There were at least two knives in the drawer and From my viewing of the film taken by the crime scene analysts, both of them could have been a murder weapon.  If the investigators were looking for a possible murder weapon in Raffaele's apartment then the same rules would apply. ALL items which could inflict stabbing and/or slashing wounds should have been collected.  (though why they felt it would be in Raffaele’s apartment I can’t explain).

The police are staring at a gold mine of potential murder weapons.  What do they do?  If it had been an FBI investigation, the Agent would have scooped up every possible item in Raffaele's apartment that could inflict a stabbing and/or slashing wound. You never know until the lab reports get back.  You might just get lucky and find DNA, or invisible blood or something.  Every possible weapon seized gives police a better chance of finding the murder weapon!  The more possible weapons, the better their chances!  They would take them all and add them to the pile of potential weapons seized from the cottage, (which weren’t there because the police didn’t take them).

But in Raffaele’s apartment in Perugia, the officer chose one.  One.  As if he knew which one he wanted.

If the murder weapon is in the apartment and let's say as an example, you take one out of 5 possible weapons; you have an 80% chance of missing it.  If you take all of them, your chances are 100% of finding it.  Choosing just one possible weapon is counter-intuitive.  It is unprofessional.  It is negligent.  It makes no sense.  It absolutely devastates your chances of finding the murder weapon—if it was in that apartment to begin with.  Mainly, though, it seems inconsistent with a search for the truth.  I can only imagine having to explain to the United States Attorney that I left 80% of the potential evidence in the apartment.  That would be an unpleasant conversation.

Now imagine their luck!  That very knife blade allegedly bore a speck of DNA so infinitesimal that only two things could be determined for sure.  #1:  It wasn’t blood.  #2.  But it was Meredith’s DNA (kind of).  The amount of DNA “found” was too small for legitimate testing, but that didn’t stop the authorities.  The size of the sample was also too small to be admissible in reputable courts, and substantial evidence indicates that the alleged DNA might have been only in the prep equipment in the lab.  It turned out to be so small that it was “consumed” in the test.  Therefore, no second test, or even a test by the defense was possible.  The only thing not microscopic about this find was the luck of the find.  This coincidence was immense beyond words.  Or odds.

Undisputed facts about the knife collected at Raffaele Sollecito’s apartment:
1.  Meredith’s blood was not on it.

2.  The Italian Medical Examiner who conducted Meredith’s autopsy testified that 4 of the 5 wounds found on Meredith COULD NOT HAVE BEEN INFLICTED BY THAT KNIFE.

3.  The remaining wound could have been inflicted by any number of knives—including the knife that actually inflicted the stab wounds.



With the knife discredited, only one piece of potentially real physical evidence exists in the case.   A microscopic piece of DNA found on a bra clasp that in the course of 6 weeks, had been moved multiple times, finally swept into a corner and left.

It is undisputed that after her murder, Meredith Kercher’s bra was cut off.  The first cut was a vertical slice on the rear horizontal strap.  This could not have been accomplished (and would be totally unnecessary) if the bra was not fastened.  Next, the two shoulder straps were cut through and the body was rolled over.  The bra at this point was removed from the front so that the breasts could be exposed without the need to remove her other clothing.  This is not just the opinion of Steve Moore, it is also the official position of the Italian forensics experts

It is undisputed that Rudy Guede (alone) sexually abused Meredith.  It is undisputed that he did so after the fatal wounds were inflicted.

Even the prosecutor’s imaginative stories about the event do not allege that Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito cut Meredith’s bra off and removed her pants and panties after the murder so Rudy Guede could rape her.   This left Rudy Guede to cut off the bra, as he took Meredith’s clothes off.  Yet Guede’s DNA was not on the clasp!  Why?

Simply because Guede cut off the bra, he didn’t unfasten it.

Guede’s DNA was not on the bra clasp because he never touched it.  He didn’t have to.  He cut off the back of the bra, and as he removed it from the body, the short-end of the clasp strap fell to the floor.  And there it sat for six weeks.  If the rapist himself cut off the bra and never touched the clasp; what possible explanation is there for Raffaele Sollecito to touch the bra clasp if he was even in the room?  There is no explanation that can pass any test for logic and reason.

So why was DNA consistent with Sollecito’s found on the clasp?  Why was the clasp not collected for six weeks?  Is it possible that it had something to do with the complete lack of credible evidence against Sollecito and Knox to that point?

Join me at the crime scene the day after the murder.  Humor me and accompany me as if it was an FBI case and I was assigned to investigate it.  Assume the sublime for a second; that I think (though it defies logic) that Amanda and Raffaele were the murderers, and I had not already been relieved by my superiors for this strange, irrational theory.

I am now in Meredith’s room.  One of the first things I and everyone else notice in the room , after the body, is the bloody brassiere at Meredith’s feet.  I examine the bra evidence closely, without touching it, of course.  And as a trained investigator, I notice that the clasp on one side of the bra is missing—physically sliced off.

This is important evidence.  If it’s in another room, it could indicate that the assault started elsewhere.  It MUST be found.  It would be on our “to find” list, much like the ‘black box’ at a plane crash.  I would instruct that nobody leave that day until the bra clasp is found, or that I could definitively state in court that it was not in that house that day.

But, the bra clasp is plainly visible on the floor in Italian forensic videos that day.  As well as center-frame of a photograph on the day after the murder.  It is not an ancillary piece of evidence, it is a key piece.  The Policia Scientifica saw it, but didn’t pick it up.  They picked up the bra, but not the clasp that was physically cut off.   Possibilities:

Possibility 1:  They failed to notice that the bra clasp had been cut off.

Conclusion:   They are incompetent and any of their findings should be viewed with great suspicion.

Possibility 2:  They didn’t think it was important.

Conclusion:   They are incompetent and any of their findings should be viewed with great suspicion.

Possibility 3:  They looked but could not find the bra clasp.

Conclusion:   They already had the bra clasp on video.  Incomprehensible.   (See Conclusions 1 and 2 above).

Possibility 4: They saw it, but didn’t realize what it was.

Conclusion: They are incompetent and any of their findings should be viewed with great suspicion.
Finally, join me on one last trip.  It is December 18, 2007, six weeks into the investigation, and I have returned to the crime scene to see if there is more evidence.  Why would I do this?  There are only two possible reasons:

1.)  I’m in trouble.  I have no real evidence.  This is a “Hail Mary”.  Every competent investigator in the WORLD knows that anything found after 6 weeks at a crime scene (if not thrown out by a judge) will be at best suspect, and at worse, cause people to question my motives, and cast doubt on any other evidence I have already submitted—such as the knife.  So the only reason I would go back is desperation OR                             
2.)  Dramatic new information has been developed, and the evidence I’m looking for is for evidence of a completely new and different suspect.  This was not the case in the Kercher matter.

The Italian police “found” the bra clasp six weeks after the murder in a swept-up dust-pile.

A 2009 University of Arizona study showed that 40% of household dust is organic, primarily consisting of shed human skin cells.  This number, however, goes up significantly in a colder climate where doors and windows remain closed, and more than one person lives in the house. Perugia, that fall was cold.  The doors and windows in the rented home were kept closed, and four women lived there, and at least two had boyfriends who were frequent visitors.  So without scientific doubt, that dust pile contained a huge percentage of the DNA of many people who had previously been in the house.  And the clasp sat in that dust for weeks.  The police subjected the clasp to DNA examination and found, not surprisingly, that the DNA of five different people were on the clasp.

1.)           Meredith Kercher’s DNA was on the clasp.  Not a surprise.
2.)           Rudy Guede’s DNA was not on the clasp.  Not a surprise, he CUT the bra off.
3.)           DNA was reported on the bra clasp which indicated it could be in a class of DNA                      that included Raffaele’s DNA.  Why he would ever touch the bra clasp, even if the                     prosecutor’s stories were true, is incomprehensible.

The prosecution, for reasons they refuse to explain, have refused to allow any independent laboratory to test the DNA found on the bra clasp.

In this case, at every significant step, the investigators’ actions were counter to and opposite of established and recognized investigative procedures and “best practices”.  Every conclusion they took from evidence presented was counter to logic or reason.

For instance, at the crime scene, we have the following undisputed facts:  A window was broken by a thrown rock; a grate below the broken window allowed access to the cottage, and a known burglar (who is also known to carry a knife) is present in the cottage.  A female resident of the cottage, who we know to have returned about 9:00 – 9:30 p.m. is grabbed in her room, stabbed and raped.  Her purse is rifled, $300 stolen, and the burglar escapes the country.  These are facts.

However, from this scenario, the detectives incredibly come to the conclusion NOT that a simple (but horrible) resident-surprises-burglar, burglar-rapes-and-robs-resident case has occurred—NO.  From this simple scenario, we have the tortured hypothesis of a Dean’s List exchange student from America engaging in a drug-fuelled orgy with a new boyfriend and an African stranger, and/or stumbling on her roommate being raped, and siding with the rapist, stabbing her friend and cottage-mate in the throat with a knife that isn’t in the cottage.

The detectives in this matter chose to believe that this opportunistic “clustered crime scene” killer did nothing to hide his footprints, fingerprints, DNA, or shoeprints, hair or bodily fluids, but then decided to break a window and steal cash to stage a burglary.  This defies any human logic.

The book “Practical Homicide Investigation” is the veritable ‘Bible’ of homicide investigation and homicide crime scene practices.  It has been so for the last several decades, and was last updated in 2006.  Its author, Vernon Geberth is a retired lieutenant commander of the New York City Police Department with 40 years on the job.  His last assignment was as the commanding officer of the Bronx Homicide Task Force, which handled over 400 murder investigations a year.  He is a graduate of the FBI National Academy, and is arguably the most qualified homicide investigator in the United States.  He continues to teach homicide investigation at the New York City Police Department.  He cautions against the dangers of preconceived notions at a crime scene:

“The investigators must keep in mind that their hypothesis is provisional.  If new evidence emerges that suggests a different sequence of events, they must be willing to reassess and modify their hypothesis as the new facts dictate.  I have been at many different homicide scenes over the years and have seen initial theories change over and over again.  The key to success in this phase of the investigation is flexibility.  Practically speaking, use your common sense in this process.  Do not get bogged down in theory and hypothetical speculation.  Many times the answer you are looking for is right in front of your nose.  The problem is that with all the events going on at the scene, it is sometimes easy to miss a simple observation.

The police and prosecutor in Perugia decided on an outcome in this case very early on.  They were undaunted by evidence that repeatedly contradicted and disproved their chosen outcome.  These conclusions go beyond simply stretching credibility.  They lead a rational person to question one of two things:  Either the competence or the motivation of the prosecutor.  But you decide.  Here’s a clue as to which scenario might be true:  At the time of these investigations,  prosecutor Mignini was fighting charges of gross misconduct which occurred during his conduct in a previous investigation, which involved illegal activities such as wiretapping innocent persons and journalists critical of them.  He was subsequently convicted and sentenced to over a year in prison. He is appealing this ruling. While Mignini will most likely never spend time in jail, if his conviction is upheld, he will be removed from public office and never be allowed to serve as a prosecutor or judge again. 

93  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: amanda knox found guilty on: January 30, 2014, 05:41:25 PM
Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence

The Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case isn’t really about (the alleged) evidence, it is about lack of evidence—evidence that would have to be there if Knox and Sollecito participated.   A shooting victim has an entry wound.  That is evidence.  If you tell me you have a shooting victim, but there’s no entry wound, the lack of evidence shows your theory to be impossible.  No entry wound→ no evidence→ no shooting.  A complete case consists of not just what’s at the crime scene, but what’s not at the crime scene.  This is simply basic investigation:  Investigation 101.  The prosecutors and investigators in this case simply ignored the implications of what they could not find.

In the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case, we have a conflict between an implausibly small amount of highly suspect “evidence” that is alleged to be at the scene vs. a vast amount of missing evidence that would have HAD to be at the scene if Amanda and Raffaele had participated at all, and even more so if they had participated in the way the prosecutors allege. While the prosecution’s evidence is scant, contrived and likely non-existent; the mountain of missing evidence is absolutely overwhelming and compelling.  And they both can’t be right because they are mutually exclusive.

If Amanda and Raffaele had actually killed Meredith in company with Rudy Guede, the following evidence WOULD have been there:

1.  Meredith’s room would have been filled with the bloody footprints, handprints and smears of THREE PEOPLE, not one.

In the world of homicide (and other) investigations, law enforcement officials and prosecutors use the word “transfer”.  Transfer is what it sounds like; the transfer of physical evidence from one person to another.  Transfer is especially prevalent in murders (especially by stabbing) and rape.  The nature of this case indicates that it would have the MOST transfer of any type of case.

2/3 of the required evidence missing, means 2/3 of the people were not there.

If the prosecution’s story is true, we are missing all credible evidence of the participation of, or even presence of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in the cottage at the time of the murder.

With three alleged assailants, that would mean that 2/3 of the evidence is simply missing.    Evidence of Rudy Guede’s presence and participation are everywhere; bloody footprints, DNA, fingerprints, palm prints, bodily fluids, hair and even fecal matter.  Nobody; not even Rudy Guede disputes this evidence.  How then can the total absence of evidence of any other person be explained?  The prosecution cannot provide an answer.

The sheer volume of forensic evidence of Guede’s presence is overwhelming.  Evidence of any other person’s presence or involvement could not be erased without wiping out that of Guede’s. Therefore, the room could not have been cleaned, and was not cleaned.  This means that the missing evidence was not removed—it was never there.

Amanda Knox is alleged to be the person who stabbed Meredith Kercher.  She would therefore have been in VERY close proximity to Meredith—well within an arm length.  Blood spatter evidence at the scene is consistent with ‘projected’, or ‘medium velocity impact spatter (MVIS) blood stains which travel at between 1.5 meters per second (mps) and 7.5 mps.  (That is an arm-length in ½ second).  Blood was spattered several feet away from Meredith’s wounds.  It is inconceivable that the person stabbing Meredith was not contaminated by blood spatter.  Guede was.

Anybody holding Meredith (such as was alleged by the prosecution) would be within the spatter zone.  Again; blood on clothes and skin.  This would mean that both Raffaele and Guede would have had substantial amounts of Meredith’s blood on them as they were alleged to have held Meredith.

The volume of blood in a woman the size of Meredith is between 4 and 5 liters.  Approximately 2 liters of blood loss results in death.  That would indicate that at least two liters (a little over half a gallon) of blood was spilled on the hard-surfaced floor.

Nobody disputes that Meredith was fighting bravely for her life to her last breath.  There were 46 wounds on her body consistent with such a struggle.  With three persons wrestling and stabbing, it is impossible that contact blood transfer did not occur; on the feet, on the clothing and on the hands of any alleged perpetrator.  Especially when fighting in the small confines of Meredith’s bedroom.  And the footprints would occasionally overlap.

Guede stepped in the blood, Guede put his hand in the blood, Guede touched surfaces all around the room.  Yet neither Amanda Knox, nor Raffaele Sollecito came in contact with any blood?  This is difficult to conceive, as even if they avoided the large blood pools and spatters, it would be impossible to avoid stepping on the bloody (but sometimes latent) footprints left by Guede.

It is all the more impressive that examiners found latent (but non-blood) footprints claimed to be of Amanda all through the house….but NONE in Meredith’s room.  This is an impossible result if Amanda had been involved in the murder.  Against all of this missing evidence is a bra clasp that sat for six weeks in a pile of dust with a questionable DNA marking related to Sollecito, and a bloody footprint of Guede that the prosecution asserted to have belonged to Raffaele.

2.  There would be blood-stained clothes, underwear and/or shoes of the attackers.

There is a simple answer to why Guede’s clothes were not found to have blood on them.  They were never found.  Guede left the country, and disposed of his clothes and shoes.  Those items can never be tested.  But Amanda and Raffaele stayed in town.  Their clothes would have been with them.  Maybe even ON them.  The blood would likely not have even been dry.  Even after laundering, it is easy to detect latent blood on fabric and certainly leather.  Any blood on Amanda or Raffaele’s clothes or shoes would have been found.

No blood was ever found on any of their clothes or shoes.

The prosecution might argue that the two disposed of the clothes they allegedly wore at the murder.  But then one would have to believe that they cleverly and secretly disposed of their shoes, they disposed of their clothes, they disposed of one murder knife……but they kept a second murder knife, and returned it to their silverware drawer.  This makes absolutely no sense.  I remember as a kid that if you started telling a tall tale, the tales you had to tell to back the first one up became all the more ridiculous.  This reminds me of that type of situation.

3.  There would have been bruises, cuts and other injuries to Amanda and Raffaele.

It is a rare occurrence when a frenzied fight involving a knife does not involve injuries to both parties, even when one is assumed to be larger and stronger than the other.

When I was on an FBI SWAT Team, we had an exercise designed to teach us the dangers of trying to fight off a knife attack.  A red magic-marker played the part of a knife, and an “assailant” would attempt to attack another member of the SWAT Team with it.  We did this in white t-shirts and open sleeves so we could see the wounds.  Within seconds, the assailant had usually dispatched the victim with stabs and slashing attacks to the neck and torso, as the victim fought back desperately.  Without exception though, the attacker was “cut”.  Always.  And almost every time on the hands or fingers.  This is because the victim, in attempting to fight off a knife, reaches for the hands, which deflects the knife into fingers or other parts of the hands.  In addition to the “cuts”, there were bruises and lacerations simply from elbows and arms flying.

Also, folding knives have no ‘hilt’, a perpendicular piece between the knife handle and blade to keep your hand from sliding forward when using the knife for stabbing.  When this happens, the attacker usually receives slash injuries to his finger just below (or in the vicinity of) the second knuckle.  Amanda could not have known that.  She had no such cuts.  Rudy Guede, when arrested had such cuts across three of his fingers.  One piece of evidence used against O.J. Simpson in his stabbing/slashing murder trial was that he had a severe cut on his finger, likely inflicted during a stabbing motion when his hand slid over the blade.

In the FBI, I have been involved in several physical altercations, including a couple of attempts to take a knife away from a person.  Each of those events ended in all parties having bruises and/or cuts.  And these people weren’t fighting for their life; they were just fighting to keep from being arrested.  Meredith had 46 wounds consistent with a fight for her life.  Rudy had just such cuts on his hand.  If Meredith had been attacked by three people, is it plausible that in all of Meredith’s fighting that she was unable to inflict a single scratch or a bruise on either of her other two attackers?  Not really.

Neither Raffaele nor Amanda had a bruise on their body, not a cut, not a scratch. Amanda had a small mark on her neck that was proven to be nothing. There was not a single hair of theirs in the room. Raffaele’s glasses were not broken or bent.  They were NOT involved in any struggle with Meredith.

4.  There would be significant blood residue

They had to change and clean up.  They didn’t change their clothes outside.  They would have to have changed either at Amanda’s or Raffaele’s, and if the clothes came in contact with ANY object or substance, there would have been further transfer.  At the O.J. Simpson crime scene, significant amounts of the victims’ blood were found on the carpet in Simpson’s house.

There is NO place where they could have changed their clothes which would not have been contaminated by contact transfer.

Not a speck of blood was found in Amanda’s room or Raffaele’s apartment. (According to the Italian authorities themselves, not even the knife taken from Raffaele’s apartment had blood on it.)

5.  There would likely have been some type of escape attempt

Guede fled to Germany shortly after the murder.  Amanda had time to get a flight out of the country and to the safety of America.  Raffaele had friends in Rome.  Instead, Amanda was at her cottage when Raffaele called the police.

6.  Much (flawed) amateur psychology has been bandied about by the press and the police in this matter.  It is true, however, that a person’s behavior can be an indicator of future violence.

The prosecution alleged ridiculous theories in this case such as satanic rituals, etc., which were soundly rejected even in the Motivation Document.  However, the Motivation Document alleges that Amanda came upon her roommate fighting off a rapist, and instead of assisting her roommate; she sided with the rapist.  Not only that, but for some unknown reason, Amanda abandoned her attempts to assist Guede rape her friend, and simply slashed her throat.  The Motivation Document could not provide any motive for this attack.  This is anti-social behavior in the extreme.  This is sociopathy.  This behavior is so extreme that it could not be hidden from the world prior to this event.

As part of my duties in the FBI, I was responsible for evaluating the dangerousness of individuals who were involved in violent groups, or were threatening violence.  I worked closely with FBI profilers on these matters, and even assisted in the creation of an FBI text on lone attackers.  We put dangerous people in prison and I believe we saved lives.

The Association of Threat Assessment Professionals (ATAP), whose conferences I attend, has several behavioral checklists to assess potential violence.  The following are a selection of questions which are industry standards used to assist in the assessment of behavior that indicates future violence.  They rate the potential violence by how many of these predictors are present in a person’s life.  The higher the score, the higher the potential threat.  Let’s check how Amanda Knox would score on this test.

But first, we should discuss the word “credible”.  Something is credible when it can be backed up with substantial facts.  An unsupported accusation (such as those we have seen in the press) is simply non-credible.  In determining if anybody was dangerous, we always discounted any information that we could not verify.  Doing otherwise would endanger lives.  An example of information which would be discounted here is, for instance, an accusation that Amanda Knox was involved in the occult, and committed murder as part of a satanic ritual.  No unbiased person believes that, and it has never been established with a single scintilla of evidence.


A.  A MOTIVE for violence:
No motive has ever been established for Amanda allegedly murdering Meredith, though the prosecution came up with a new one almost every week during the trial.  None.

B.  Homicidal fantasies or preoccupation:
No credible allegation has ever been made that Amanda Knox harbored homicidal fantasies or preoccupation.  This would have surfaced by the time Amanda was 21.  Stories would abound; she would likely be a feared person.  Much like Rudy Guede was in Perugia.

C.  Violent intentions and expressed threats
Not once can a single person provide any account that Amanda threatened anybody in her entire life.  Not one person can state that she ever displayed violence of any kind.  Ever.

D.  Weapons skills and access
Amanda Knox has no knowledge of guns or knives as weapons.  (If you consider cooking knives a weapon, then there is not a person in America or Italy over the age of 8 who does not have access to a weapon, rendering this part of the question null).

Putting a knife in Amanda’s hand is like putting a trumpet in my hand.  It doesn’t mean that I know what to do with it.  I am a firearms instructor.  I can tell you that a knife or firearm in an inexperienced person’s hands is more dangerous to them than others.  The thought that you could put a knife in Amanda’s hands, and the very first time, have her inflict fatal wounds (especially without injuring herself in the process) is ludicrous.

E.  Pre-Attack planning
The Italian court stated that there was no pre-planning for this crime.

F.  Stalking
No allegation was made, even by Mignini, that Amanda ever stalked Meredith or any other person.  Amanda has never been accused of stalking or ANY similar behavior in the US.

G.  Job Problems
Amanda held several jobs working toward going to Italy to study.  She has never been fired from a job.  She had no reason to believe that she was having any problems at Le Chic. (After an angry Patrick Lumumba was released from prison, he told the “Daily Mail” tabloid that he had fired Amanda prior to the crime.  This was shown to be a lie in trial.)

H.  Loss, Personal Stressors
Amanda was having the time of her life in Perugia.  She had just met Raffaele, and was in a new romance.  Amanda was extremely happy.

I.  Lack of conscience
Much has been made of a perceived lack of concern for Meredith in the days following the murder.  I believe most of these to be highly inaccurate and sensationalized, to sell media.  However, the lack of conscience issue is not a photograph of one or two days in a person’s life.  It is a movie of their entire life.  Amanda’s care and concern for others in her hometown is legendary.  Only those who prefer to get their information from tabloids believe otherwise.

J.  Anger problems
Anger problems do not mean that a person is never angry.  A complete lack of anger over a lifetime is a danger sign, not a reason to relax.  Absent discredited tabloid reports, there are no indications that Amanda Knox dealt with anger any differently than any other normal person.   There have never been any accusations by schools, teachers, and friends or family that Amanda had “a temper” or any such thing.

K.  Depression and suicidality
I refer you to the answer to question 9:  Amanda was having the time of her life in Perugia.  She had just met Raffaele, and was in a new romance.  Amanda was extremely happy.

L.  Paranoia and other psychotic symptoms
Not a single speck credible evidence exists that in her entire life, Amanda Knox ever suffered from any mental illness, or neurosis.

M.  Isolation
Before Amanda left America, she had hundreds of friends.  She now has thousands.  Amanda is a “people person”, who at the time of Meredith’s murder, had a boyfriend and lived with three other girls.

N.  History of violence

O.  History of criminality:
Amanda Knox has NO history of criminality.  None.  In his latest appeal Prosecutor Mignini points out that Amanda was fined for a loud party.  A loud party?  Really?  This is not criminality.  Period.   This is no more criminality than is a speeding ticket.  Are all college students who host or go to loud parties now threats to become violent murderers?  The argument is simply absurd and beneath the dignity of Mignini’s office, though clearly not below his personal dignity.  This is a panic reaction to an upcoming appeal.  Are we to believe that there is a person in a civilized country who believes that the throwing of a loud college party is grounds for raising a sentence from 26 years to life?  Where are the statutes that say a loud party is worth a prison sentence enhancement?  This is simply desperation and petty posturing.  It should shame an otherwise honorable and reasonable Italian Judiciary.

Mignini alleges that rocks were thrown at the party.  But he does not allege that Amanda had any part in it.  She didn’t.  How do I know?  If Mignini had any proof that she threw a single rock, he would have put it in the appeal.

These are examples of a history of criminality that professionals recognize:  Robbery, threats, assault, cruelty to animals….All things in which Rudy Guede has dabbled.

Amanda had been in Perugia for three months and was virtually unknown to the police.  Rudy Guede, however, had been arrested several times in the previous 30 days.

P.  Domestic partner violence

Amanda scores a zero on the potential violence threat test.  No threat.  Not a small threat, not a manageable threat, not a moderate threat….no threat whatsoever.

1.  There is absolutely no evidence of Amanda Knox in the room at the time of the murder,  nor is there evidence that she participated in any way.
a.      No blood
b.      No hairs
c.      No fingerprints
d.      No footprints
e.      No saliva
f.       No DNA

2.  There are absolutely no items of Amanda’s which have any blood on them
a.      No clothes
b.      No shoes
c.      No socks
d.      No underwear

3.  Amanda had not a scratch on her the morning after the attack
a.      No cuts
b.      No bruises
c.      No lacerations

4.  There was absolutely no blood found in Raffaele’s apartment or Amanda’s room.
a.      Nothing on the floors
b.      Nothing on knives
c.      Nothing on carpets
d.      Nothing on walls
e.      Nothing on clothes
f.       Nothing on utensils
g.      Nothing on doorknobs

5.  There was no escape attempt by Amanda or Raffaele
a.      Rudy escaped to Germany shortly after the attack
b.      Amanda did not attempt to flee
c.      Raffaele did not attempt to flee

6.  There were NO psychological indicators of potential violence in Amanda
a.      No motive
b.      No homicidal fantasies or preoccupation
c.      No violent intentions or expressed threats
d.      No weapons skills
e.      No pre-attack planning
f.       No stalking
g.      No job problems
h.      No loss or personal stressors
i.       No lack of conscience
j.       No anger problems
k.      No depression or suicidality
l.       No paranoia or other symptoms
m.     No isolation
n.      No history of violence
o.      No history of criminality
p.      No domestic partner violence.

Based on the preceding, AMANDA’S INVOLVEMENT IN THE MURDER IS NOT JUST UNLIKELY, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE.  The prosecution is missing all evidence needed to convict Amanda Knox, and hasn’t provided any plausible reason for it's absence.

94  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: amanda knox found guilty on: January 30, 2014, 05:38:35 PM
Do some reading Galeniko,

Investigation of Violent Crimes is My Life; Not a Hobby
by, Steve Moore

My name is Steve Moore; I retired from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in 2008 after 25 years as a Special Agent and Supervisory Special Agent. My entire investigative experience was in the investigation and prosecution of violent crime, from murder to mass-murder and terrorism. In my last such assignment, I was the Supervisor of the Al Qaeda Investigations squad, following which I ran the FBI’s Los Angeles-based “Extra-Territorial Squad”, which was tasked with responding to any acts of terrorism against the United States in Asia and Pakistan. I have investigated murders throughout the United States and the world.

I do not know Amanda Knox. I have never met or spoken with anybody in the Knox or Mellas families. In my 25 years in the FBI, I had come to believe that if you were arrested, you were probably guilty. I never had a person I took to trial who wasn’t convicted. I was especially tired of guilty persons claiming their innocence.

I had heard snippets about the Knox case from the news, and believed that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were certainly guilty. But then I began to hear statements from the press that contradicted known facts. Wanting to resolve the conflicts, I looked into the case out of curiosity. The more I looked, the more I was troubled by what I found. So I looked deeper, and I ended up examining every bit of information I could find (and there’s a lot of it). The more I investigated, the more I realized that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito could not have had anything to do with the murder of Meredith Kercher. Moreover, one reason that they were falsely convicted was that every rule of good investigation was violated.

I spent years of my life working on cases in the federal courts, from simple murder to mass shootings to weapons of mass destruction. In the U.S., the totality of the evidence and the hunches of the investigators in this matter would not have been sufficient to get a search warrant, much less take somebody to trial. The case is completely flawed in every way. The physical evidence against Amanda and Raffaele is wrong, contrived, misinterpreted, and (to put it kindly) misstated. The other “evidence” is made up of (embarrassingly naïve) hunches and bias. The “DNA” evidence is particularly inaccurate. The alleged motive and modus operandi of Knox/Sollecito is so tortured (and constantly-changing) that it defies belief.

“FACTS DETERMINE CONCLUSIONS”—The universal truism of investigation. The instant that one’s conclusions determine or change the facts, you have corrupted the judicial system.
I have been a young investigator, and I have supervised eager but inexperienced young investigators. Young or inexperienced investigators have a tendency to believe their own hunches. This is dangerous, because uneducated hunches are usually wrong. Hunches are not bad, they just need to be allowed to die a natural death when evidence proves them wrong. The sign of an investigation run amok is when an initial hunch is nurtured and kept on life support long after evidence should have killed it. This case is just such a situation. In the Knox case, the investigator openly states:

“We knew she was guilty of murder without physical evidence.” -- Edgardo Giobbi, Investigator.

Then, when physical evidence came in that did not support their story, they simply changed their story. And their suspects. And their murder weapons. And the motives. (If there was ever a ‘smoking gun’ in this case; that statement was it.)

I will only say of the interrogation, that if any FBI Agents I supervised had conducted that interrogation in the U.S., I would have had them indicted. I am not surprised that Amanda made incriminating and conflicting statements in such a horrible situation. I am more surprised that under that duress, she didn’t make more incriminating (but ultimately false) statements. Hypothetically, any trained investigator operating for many hours without rules, in a foreign language, slapping and threatening a naïve, frightened girl just out of her teens and in a foreign country, (denying her food, sleep and the right to an attorney and Consular advice) can get her to say just about anything. If this was the medical profession, one might deem such activities “intentional malpractice”.

The investigators in this matter appeared to have decided upon a conclusion, and repeatedly changed their story so that the evidence would suit their conclusions. After the evidence came back that Rudy Guede sexually assaulted Meredith, did it not occur to the investigators that they had a simple rape/murder? The simplest answer is usually the correct answer. Crimes are only this complicated in James Bond movies. Amanda would not even have been a suspect in any US investigation. A sex murder occurs and your prime suspect is the female roommate? Experienced, or simply competent investigators would have known that statistically, 90% of murders are committed by men. When women commit murder, only 16% use a knife, and close examination might show that the vast majority of those are gang-related. Any conclusion that involves a woman stabbing another woman is statistically so rare, that it should be looked at with great suspicion.

There is also a thing called “leakage”. Leakage is the tendency of homicidal or mentally ill people to ‘leak’ behavior that would indicate their true nature. If one is to believe that Amanda Knox was the drug-crazed, homicidal Svengali that she was made out to be, there is absolutely NO way that such sociopathic behavior would not be leaked in some significant way prior to this crime. No, instead we see a girl on the Dean’s list working several jobs to attend a university program in Italy. A girl who had not even had a scrape with law enforcement.

A good auto mechanic who lacks scruples, can take a car out of a junk yard, bolt on a couple of new fenders, drop in new carpets and slap on tires and a $100 coat of paint. Once he cleans up the interior and rolls back the odometer, he could sell it as a near new car to 99% of the population. It appears new, the mileage says it’s new, and only a trained mechanic would know the difference.

But bring in a trained mechanic, and he might notice that the brake pedal, for instance, is worn almost to the metal. That’s a sure sign of 100,000 miles of use or more. The hint of blue smoke out of the exhaust would be a dead give-away of a worn-out motor. He would warn you that all is not as pretty and new as it seems.

Take my word for this. Investigation of violent crimes is my life; not a hobby. The case the Italian prosecutors are trying to sell you is not the beautiful thing it appears to some to be. It’s a junker all cleaned-up and waiting to be purchased by naïve people. And the jury in Perugia bought it.
95  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: amanda knox found guilty on: January 30, 2014, 05:34:19 PM
The prosecutor from that town is famous for dreaming up sex cults that murder people he is a crackpot.
96  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: amanda knox found guilty on: January 30, 2014, 05:24:43 PM
What was the motive?

I know a lot of murders don't make a lot of sense but I just dont see this adding up at all.
Robbery. The black guy acted alone and threw the two kids under the bus when offered a deal.
97  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: Dave Palumbo is in the hospital on: January 30, 2014, 05:04:41 PM
The emergency surgery he has been talking about for the past month?
98  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: amanda knox found guilty on: January 30, 2014, 05:00:28 PM
The black guy acted alone. Simple robbery gone wrong.

The confession? Where is the videotape of it? Oops they only wrote down what she supposedly said.

Where was her interpreter since she had only been in Italy for a few weeks and knew very basic Italian. Oops neglected to get her one.

99  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: Dorian's Best FDB Pic!!.. on: January 30, 2014, 12:04:53 AM
By 1997 he also had shrinking forearm syndrome same as lots of guys today.
100  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: Looking Back - Blasts from the past on: January 29, 2014, 01:26:45 PM
Dorian's discipline was his greatest strength. I remember interviewing him back then and I asked how he kept beating the genetic freaks like Flex Wheeler, Levrone etc. His answer was simple. it went something like this.

"While they are missing workouts and having days off, I'm training even harder. When they cheat on their diet I go harder, when they go out and party, I grab an early night. You see I know they are weaker than me and that what allows me to beat them"

I had Dorian guest posing at a show 3 weeks after his first Olympia win, he was eating tuna straight out of a can, I asked why he was doing that, his reply revealed what a decent man he was. "those people have paid to see me and I wouldn't want to rip them off."
1992 Australia I was there.

Yates walks out and there is silence for the first few seconds. Nobody could believe it.

That was the year he over dieted so two weeks after the show he had basically just filled out. He was very lean still and HUGE.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 195
Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!