Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[carbonjam72]

These issues are interesting points to debate. Coming to a conclusion about what was "innocent error" and what was "intentional framing" in the days prior to the Nov. 5/6 interrogation may be difficult due to lack of direct evidence. The Nov. 5/6 interrogation without counsel for the subjects, when the initial subject, Raffaele Sollecito was invited to the police station late in the evening (and actually came later, because of a desire to finish dinner) is absolutely evidence of intended misconduct, IMO. Police don't interview non-suspects late at night for a crime that was discovered days before.

There was no legitimate, reasonable explanation for Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito to be suspects, and the police needed to assume that the break-in was staged to justify the frame-up. The police carefully did not investigate the physical characteristics of the break-in, so as to maintain the pretense that it was a staging. The initial observation that nothing was missing, or almost nothing (Meredith's cell phones and money were taken), may have been absorbed non-innocently into the frame-up.

I do believe you need to formulate a position with respect to the relationship, if any, between Guede and Mignini/Perugia. Do you believe Guede came to mind as the first responders (Napoleone, Zugarini) inspected the crime scene? I'm not saying you must agree with me, but I do think you have to take a position, in order to have a consistent opinion. It's not a reasonable argument to just leave this question "blank", and then expect to be able to build an argument from there.

Try the argument different ways, i.e., Assume they (Nappy & Zuggy) recognized Guede's MO / assume they did not - does taking either logical path change your conclusions? How so?

After which, I note the following:

IIRC, Giobbi was on the crime scene the afternoon of the first day. When did Mignini call in Giobbi, such that he could travel from Rome to Perugia, and still arrive that afternoon? Timeline, anyone? (I'll bet before Mignini arrived at the crime scene himself, @2pm? IIRC).

Why would Mignini call in Giobbi (serious crimes unit - mafia, terrorists, serial killers)? If there's no serious crime, there's no reason to call Giobbi. A simple murder, a one off, from a burglary or a sex game gone wrong, wouldn't seem to qualify as "serious" meaning the potential of on-going serial activity.

Giobbi started making his "psychological observations" immediately. Within 3-4 months, Amanda was up on Giobbi's trophy wall, before even being charged. Why?

When Giobbi left Rome, the murder was already a 'satanic conspiracy' in Mignini's mind, imo, and before Mignini even arrived at the crime scene. Whether Mig believes his own baloney, is between him and the prison therapist one hopes he'll have occasion to frequent for his role in this fiasco.

 

[lonepinealex]

--


-

I don't know. I would have to walk around the building at night to see for myself.

I'm a ground floor kind of guy, so maybe I'm biased, and maybe that window is the best entry way, but from what I know now, I don't like that window as an entry,

d

-

Indeed, this is my beef with the guilters who talk about the obvious choice of windows vs balcony etc. I want to see those night time pictures, with the evidence of how the light falls.

That aside, ground floor wasn't even an option for Guede, as it was a separate apartment with (I think I've got this right) bars on the windows.

 

[Desert Fox]

These issues are interesting points to debate. Coming to a conclusion about what was "innocent error" and what was "intentional framing" in the days prior to the Nov. 5/6 interrogation may be difficult due to lack of direct evidence. The Nov. 5/6 interrogation without counsel for the subjects, when the initial subject, Raffaele Sollecito was invited to the police station late in the evening (and actually came later, because of a desire to finish dinner) is absolutely evidence of intended misconduct, IMO. Police don't interview non-suspects late at night for a crime that was discovered days before.

There was no legitimate, reasonable explanation for Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito to be suspects, and the police needed to assume that the break-in was staged to justify the frame-up. The police carefully did not investigate the physical characteristics of the break-in, so as to maintain the pretense that it was a staging. The initial observation that nothing was missing, or almost nothing (Meredith's cell phones and money were taken), may have been absorbed non-innocently into the frame-up.

I have no real problem with them originally being considered suspects but I think they could and should have been quickly eliminated.

 

[Bill Williams]

In fact I already did. But the refutation basically consists in just noting the complete lack of evidence for the points. Statements like "the plate number is 365bis" are not points. Assertions like "Stefanoni suppressed results" are no evidence to refute.
And those who assert they have "evidence" of wrongdoings they should present that to the police or to a judge.

So far the convicting courts have ruled consistently in Stefanoni's favour, while rejecting much of the case Mignini presented.

I can predict how the court case will go.

REPUBLIC OF ITALY
In the name of the Italian People
The Second Court of Assizes of Appeal of Florence
Composed of Messrs:
1. Dr. Alessandro Nencini, Presiding Judge and Extensor
2. Dr. Luciana Cicerchia, Judge of the Court of Appeal
3. Mrs. Elena Perrucci, Lay Judge
4. Mrs. Lucia Bargelli, Lay Judge
5. Mrs. Veronica Alessi, Lay Judge
6. Mrs. Marisa Lippi, Lay Judge
7. Mrs. Genny Ballerini, Lay Judge
8. Mr. Giovanni Cocco, Lay Judge
in the presence of the Prosecution represented by the Assistant General State Prosecutor Dr. Alessandro Crini

pronounced the following

SENTENCE
in the case remanded by the Court of Cassation against

1) Numbers - internet poster on International Skeptics Forum
PRESENT

ACCUSED
Numbers: of defamation against Patrizia Stefanoni, Scientific Police.

At trial Numbers presents all the evidence against Stefanoni, including letters and depositions from the world's leading DNA experts. Numbers establishes a prima facie case against Stefanoni.

However, Stefanoni is call to the stand to give her own evidence. It goes like this:

Crini: did you do anything alleged against you.

Stefanoni: No.

Nencini then stops the trial and renders immediate judgement against Numbers. Numbers is never seen or heard from again, held in a prison somewhere on Corsica.

 

[Bill Williams]

I have no real problem with them originally being considered suspects but I think they could and should have been quickly eliminated.

Ditto.

 

[Rolfe]

Numbers is never seen or heard from again, held in a prison somewhere on Corsica.

Corsica is in France....

 

[Dan O.]

Machiavelli should familiarize himself with a Hobson's Choice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobson%27s_choice

As soon as someone did as Machiavelli advised, they'd be charged with defamation. The police and PMs control the charge process. This case has proven that judges will sometimes side with the prosecutor simplyon their say so.

Machiavelli has admitted this. He has said that at trial, the court assumes that what police and PMs theorize, has some reason behind it - even with no evidence offered.

The burden of proof, in effect, is then reversed.

It would simply do no good in this case to bring evidence of Stefanoni's wrongdoings to an Italian court. Massei and Necini's courts are evidence of that! Judge Massei had most of the evidence of Stefanoni's unprofessionalism in front of him - he saw both those pictures upthread.

He sided with Stefanoni anyway, simply on her say-so.

Unlike anyone else posting here, Machiavelli himself has access to the police and judges. If he actually believed what he was saying he would take the evidence we have presented here to the Italian authorities and bring back the official refutation if there was one.

I suspect however that Machiavelli knows exactly what kind of trouble he would cause for himself if he were to stir such a hornets nest.

 

[Rolfe]

I thought the majority here are Italian?
For some others I have argued with on other boards, it seem a hatred of America.

I don't honestly know. I suppose I was thinking at least partly of the people in the PMF forums, who don't seem to be Italian for the most part.

I find the reaction of the Italian posters strange. I'm not Italian, I don't live in Italy, and I'm not obliged to go there. So none of this affects me. It could affect them though.

I'm not even speaking hypothetically when I say that living in a country where the criminal justice system cannot guarantee a competent investigation, a fair trial, or prompt and proportionate rectification of errors when they come to light, is something I find very worrying.

My reaction is to join with others to try to draw attention to the problems, in the hope of improving matters. The Italian posters here, faced with what seems to be an even worse situation, enthusiastically defend it. And yet, they are the very ones who may suffer from it in the future.

 

[Bill Williams]

Numbers is never seen or heard from again, held in a prison somewhere on Corsica Sardinia.

Corsica is in France....

It was an, er, spelling error!

 

[Numbers]

Anyone in Perugia that night could be a suspect

I have no real problem with them originally being considered suspects but I think they could and should have been quickly eliminated.

The problem is that "possible suspect" (which may have included a large number of persons) became "certain suspect" very quickly, without waiting for the forensic evidence, such as the rape kit results (as far as we know; the police may actually had those results by Nov. 5/6). The reason the police moved so quickly on Nov. 5 was that Amanda Knox's mother was coming to Perugia on Nov. 6, and (I assume) would have helped Amanda get a lawyer.

Does miscounting or not bothering to count shoe sole rings seen in shoe prints made in blood count as evidence? Did police know that Raffaele Sollecito had shoes with rings on their soles before Nov. 5? But the number of rings did not match those of the shoe prints in the cottage.

Then inculpatory forensic evidence against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito was conveniently created after the arrests.

 

[Desert Fox]

The problem is that "possible suspect" (which may have included a large number of persons) became "certain suspect" very quickly, without waiting for the forensic evidence, such as the rape kit results (as far as we know; the police may actually had those results by Nov. 5/6). The reason the police moved so quickly on Nov. 5 was that Amanda Knox's mother was coming to Perugia on Nov. 6, and (I assume) would have helped Amanda get a lawyer.

Does miscounting or not bothering to count shoe sole rings seen in shoe prints made in blood count as evidence? Did police know that Raffaele Sollecito had shoes with rings on their soles before Nov. 5? But the number of rings did not match those of the shoe prints in the cottage.

Then inculpatory forensic evidence against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito was conveniently created after the arrests.

I think I would initially put Amanda on the "short list" because she knows Meredeth. Other people would include Meredeth's boyfriend though.

When I first heard about the case, I kind of assumed it was a case with solid evidence and I assumed some kind of fight.

 

[Numbers]

I do believe you need to formulate a position with respect to the relationship, if any, between Guede and Mignini/Perugia. Do you believe Guede came to mind as the first responders (Napoleone, Zugarini) inspected the crime scene? I'm not saying you must agree with me, but I do think you have to take a position, in order to have a consistent opinion. It's not a reasonable argument to just leave this question "blank", and then expect to be able to build an argument from there.

Try the argument different ways, i.e., Assume they (Nappy & Zuggy) recognized Guede's MO / assume they did not - does taking either logical path change your conclusions? How so?

After which, I note the following:

IIRC, Giobbi was on the crime scene the afternoon of the first day. When did Mignini call in Giobbi, such that he could travel from Rome to Perugia, and still arrive that afternoon? Timeline, anyone? (I'll bet before Mignini arrived at the crime scene himself, @2pm? IIRC).

Why would Mignini call in Giobbi (serious crimes unit - mafia, terrorists, serial killers)? If there's no serious crime, there's no reason to call Giobbi. A simple murder, a one off, from a burglary or a sex game gone wrong, wouldn't seem to qualify as "serious" meaning the potential of on-going serial activity.

Giobbi started making his "psychological observations" immediately. Within 3-4 months, Amanda was up on Giobbi's trophy wall, before even being charged. Why?

When Giobbi left Rome, the murder was already a 'satanic conspiracy' in Mignini's mind, imo, and before Mignini even arrived at the crime scene. Whether Mig believes his own baloney, is between him and the prison therapist one hopes he'll have occasion to frequent for his role in this fiasco.

{Highlighting added to quote.}

IMO, your first paragraph doesn't hold. That is (and this may be from my own training to suspend judgment on issues where there is, IMO, insufficient evidence for a conclusion) the framing could have started immediately or with a short delay (of only one or at most 2 days, IMO) and reached the same endpoint. I see the possibility that Guede's handiwork was not identified, but due to Mignini's obsessions, as soon as he arrived on scene, decided Amanda Knox was guilty: a young, attractive American woman, vulnerable due to inexperience, geographically distant family support, limited cultural comprehension (she had been in Italy about 6 weeks), and only a beginning knowledge of Italian; and a murder on Nov. 1, the Day of the Dead, full of ritual significance.

I am not sure about the procedures or motivation for calling in Giobbi. IIUC, Mignini had worked with his predecessor (Guittari[sp?]) on the Narducci witch-hunt. Again, it may be Mignini's obsession with conspiracy and inability or lack of interest in common-place crime that drove this.

 

[platonov]

Top of the class.

Unlike anyone else posting here, Machiavelli himself has access to the police and judges. If he actually believed what he was saying he would take the evidence we have presented here to the Italian authorities and bring back the official refutation if there was one.

I suspect however that Machiavelli knows exactly what kind of trouble he would cause for himself if he were to stir such a hornets nest.

Now, now Dan O, be fair. I know you and Mach don’t see eye to eye on this case but trying to get him committed to a mental health facility is a little harsh.

Anyway – don’t self proclaimed friends and confidants of AK/her family read/post here.
Can’t they do it?

Or her lawyers

 

[Planigale]

It's certainly not as bad here as it is in Italy, to put it into perspective, but it's not as rosy as that post suggests. As I said, the scientists at RARDE weren't censured for what they did, and they lived to rig a few more wrongful convictions. Including the Hyde Park bombing.

The little difficulty with the complete notebooks revealing cherrypicking and bias was fixed, not by eliminating cherrypicking and bias, but by switching to using loose-leaf sheets so that pages could be removed and interpolated at will. They were also playing a dodgy game with 35 mm photographic negatives.

Shirley McKie was paid £700,000 to shut up and go away, rather than have her case come to court and allow full scrutiny of what had happened with these misidentified fingerprints.

I think they have tightened things up in the SCRO since then, but it's all very murky and they're more interested in saving face than in ensuring transparency and public confidence.

Thank you. I do not mean to be rude but all this is ancient history for me, I am grateful for the education. But it reinforces for me that as scientists we have professional responsibilities, but whether I personally would be scrupulously ethical if I were in a similar situation I do not know. Group think is powerful.

 

[platonov]

I thought the majority here are Italian?
For some others I have argued with on other boards, it seem a hatred of America.

Absolutely – you have nailed it. But not all of America – just the best part

But who is behind the conspiracy?
They are not the men that will be blamed for nothing.
I’m sure y'all look forward to the day they get their comeuppance.

 

[Numbers]

It was an, er, spelling error!

I believe Corsica and a portion of the French Riviera were ethnically and culturally linked to Italy.

Italy does have at least one island prison for really bad hombres.

From Wikipedia:

After being ruled by the Republic of Genoa since 1284, Corsica was briefly an independent Corsican Republic from 1755 until its conquest by France in 1769. Due to Corsica's historical ties with the Italian peninsula, the island retains to this day many elements of Italian culture. The native Corsican language, whose main variant is closely related with the Tuscan language, is recognised as a regional language by the French government.

I have no plans to travel to Italy. Perhaps I will be tried in absentia.

 

[Bill Williams]

I believe Corsica and a portion of the French Riviera were ethnically and culturally linked to Italy.

Italy does have at least one island prison for really bad hombres.

From Wikipedia:

After being ruled by the Republic of Genoa since 1284, Corsica was briefly an independent Corsican Republic from 1755 until its conquest by France in 1769. Due to Corsica's historical ties with the Italian peninsula, the island retains to this day many elements of Italian culture. The native Corsican language, whose main variant is closely related with the Tuscan language, is recognised as a regional language by the French government.

I have no plans to travel to Italy. Perhaps I will be tried in absentia.

That would be an unimaginable break, to mistakenly be convicted in an Italian court but imprisoned in a French jail!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papillon_%28book%29

You'd have to change your name to Henri Charrière!

 

[Desert Fox]

Absolutely – you have nailed it. But not all of America – just the best part

But who is behind the conspiracy?
They are not the men that will be blamed for nothing.
I’m sure y'all look forward to the day they get their comeuppance.

Ultimately, my only reason for wondering if there some sort of conspiracy is to see how this whole mess occurred. Simply put though, the evidence simply does not support Amanda and Raff being involved in the murder of Meredeth.

 

[sept79]

Not intended as a derail, but I have experience in bringing evidence of investigator and prosecutorial wrongdoing to the attention of the police. One should not assume that this is simple or straightforward, or indeed that the very police force you are accusing of wrongdoing is going to welcome your allegations with open arms - or an open mind.

To accuse an Italian police force is akin to incarcerating one's self . . .

 

[sept79]

.
.
I wish lie detectors and truth drugs really existed so we could find out if people like Stefanoni and Mignini and the rest of them honestly believe Amanda and Raffaele murdered Meredith. I really don't know what answers we'd get.

But it shouldn't matter whether Stefanoni believes in innocence or guilt.