Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

Bill, you are hardly the "Wrong Way Corrigan" of the skeptics board.

And on this point, I tend to agree. the idea of GroupThink seems a better explanation.

Can you write a reference for me to Grinder!!!!

Then again, I'm the guy who said that Frank Sfarzo was the only one who "called" the March 27 exonerations. You had something to say about that!!

 

[Grinder]

If prediction records were any indication...... I've been off 180 degrees on exactly every decision made by the Italian judiciary!

I didn't see the prediction and certainly wasn't trying to call you on one.

My view is that a conspiracy requires each person within it to make a conscious decision to take part - either because of self-interest, or what have you. But the key is there is something conscious about it. Conscious decisions like that are not like going along with "group think", the driving force of incompetence. It is very difficult for people to reach down into the depths of group-think and reverse direction.....

I think group think is not directly related to incompetence. Group think can be correct or at least the kind you are talking about. I do not believe a recording exists and never did. I think they skipped lots of recordings because they would require transcriptions which would mean work. Cops are notorious for skimping on the written reports they produce.

Right now it seems that incompetence is what happened during the night of Nov 5/6, including people like Ficara not demanding an accurate translation of key texts - like the "See you later," SMS message. Translation is always interpretation, and a competent translator would have paid attention to what was going astray, seeing the cops get all excited about an otherwise garden-variety exchange between employer/employee.

They had a message sent just before Mez returned to the cottage. They reasonably thought the message meant they were meeting soon. I doubt Domino knew what see you later meant and besides it was written in Italian. Even here if Patrick had sent a text and Amanda responded see you later the police would have been suspicious - it's not like see you later negates the possibility of a meeting the same night

The pressure was on, AK's mom was arriving soon, and the very last lead they had was about to dry up. The incompetence was that there was no one in authority, or in supervision over Ficara and Napoleoni who was willing to say:

Whoa.... slow down, you move too fast. You got to make the morning last.....​

I'm not convinced they were in a big panic over mom. Why should they slow down?

At the risk of getting another finger-wagging, there was an author who seemed to have had the inner thoughts of the cops/prosecutors at his disposal, an author who completely out of the blue wrote that Marco Chiacchiera counselled exactly that; because it is simply hard to believe that in this cascade of incompetence there wasn't one cop in the whole Questura who didn't say, "Release them, observe them, and see what happens....."

Ok, gentlemen, start your fingers wagging!

True crime NOVELS are not a reliable source if there isn't independent corroboration or cites.

as per request Just curious what would have happened if they released them and they escaped to Ecuador? What possibly would the police expect to gain by more observation?

 

[Samson]

A curious article in a Portugese newspaper, responds reasonably well to google translate.

It concludes:

One gets the sense that there are British citizens first and second class. This case has passed and there was no scandal, no special television broadcasts. Now imagine if this case had happened in Portugal and want to PJ either the MP or the judges had done the same research, given the same charges and had been given such contradictory judgments. The scandal would be huge and the country would certainly be accused of being the Third World.

Are the Portugese aspiring to reach the status and respect Italy has, er, earned?

The article seems to think PR did the trick in getting acquittals.

http://www.cmjornal.xl.pt/domingo/detalhe/amanda_knox_historia_de_um_crime_perfeito.html

 

[Draca]

One of the many mysteries of this case is what happened downstairs. Stefanoni seemed quite eager to deflect attention from her testing of things related to this. Is there suppressed evidence that RG entered the downstairs apartment?

There possibly is. Certainly some of the things we do know about the downstairs apartment - the blood on the light switch, the blood on the bedding - seem out of the ordinary.

We know that Kercher had the keys to the downstairs apartment because she had undertaken (kind girl as she was) to water her boyfriend's cannabis plants while he was away. We can also conclude that Guede took keys from Kercher (probably from inside her bag, or possibly from a surface inside her bedroom), since none of her keys were found subsequently - and also because Kercher's door was locked from the outside, and it's very likely that Guede would have needed the keys to open the front door of the cottage in order to exit the premises.

The other strange thing - as others have pointed out - is the ticket stub for an art exhibition in Rome (IIRC) that was found in a pair of trousers (again IIRC) in Guede's apartment. Guede was apparently not known for his art appreciation, not to mention that he was a petty criminal focussing on getting enough money to live and buy/sell drugs. On the other hand, one of the boys in the downstairs apartment was an art lover and (IIRC) had been in Rome at the time of that exhibition.

So I personally think it's possible that Guede had so much blood on his own trousers after the murder that he decided the best option was to take a pair of trousers from the downstairs apartment (obviously there would have been no suitable trousers in the girls' apartment). It's plausible that he could have had the means of entry via the keys Kercher was in possession of (the keys might even have been handily marked with Silenzi's name or the address of the boys' apartment).

And if that did happen, then I can also see how it's plausible that the police and PM might have wanted to minimise the attention paid to the boys' apartment in the context of a Knox/Sollecito/Guede group murder.

I somehow doubt we'll ever know the truth about what really did (or did not) happen wrt the boys' apartment on the night of the murder. To a degree, it's moot anyhow, since the true sole killer, Rudy Guede, has been identified and brought to justice. The only way in which it would be of benefit to know would be if it exposed corruption by the police/PM in suppressing evidence.

So many mysteries remain. I do like this theory LJ. Wouldn't the owner of the jeans have mentioned they were missing from the apt. though? RG also could have just taken the ticket, or not.

I remember watching the downstairs video for the first time and finding the circular patterns absolutely bizarre. And also the idea that there were random bloody tissue outside the cottage. I now think the circular pattern may have been bloody water drops and the bloody tissues from Guede himself.

Why all the cover ups? If they had just released Amanda and Raffaele and convicted Guede the egg on their face would have only lasted a very short time. I think it would have actually helped the police to just blame Rudy Guede for the mistake somehow and go with that. It became a tar baby for the prosecution where they had to keep upping the ante the longer they refused to drop it.

Well finally the injustice is over, if not all the mysteries.

The Kerchers should have sued the home owner.

Draca

 

[Draca]

Just curious.

Does anyone know if the guys downstairs were able to continue living there or was their apt sealed also and they had to find a new place to live?

 

[Numbers]

So many mysteries remain. I do like this theory LJ. Wouldn't the owner of the jeans have mentioned they were missing from the apt. though? RG also could have just taken the ticket, or not.

I remember watching the downstairs video for the first time and finding the circular patterns absolutely bizarre. And also the idea that there were random bloody tissue outside the cottage. I now think the circular pattern may have been bloody water drops and the bloody tissues from Guede himself.

Why all the cover ups? If they had just released Amanda and Raffaele and convicted Guede the egg on their face would have only lasted a very short time. I think it would have actually helped the police to just blame Rudy Guede for the mistake somehow and go with that. It became a tar baby for the prosecution where they had to keep upping the ante the longer they refused to drop it.

Well finally the injustice is over, if not all the mysteries.

The Kerchers should have sued the home owner.

Draca

{Highlighting added to quote.}

I will suggest that the police were aware that they had violated a criminal law (not merely a procedural law) in the interrogation of Amanda Knox: CP 377-bis, which provides for a prison term of 2-6 years for anyone convicted of inducing someone, through threat or violence, to make a false statement to a judicial authority. (Violation of procedural law generally only results in the inadmissibility of evidence.)

 

[Grinder]

himself.

Why all the cover ups? If they had just released Amanda and Raffaele and convicted Guede the egg on their face would have only lasted a very short time. I think it would have actually helped the police to just blame Rudy Guede for the mistake somehow and go with that. It became a tar baby for the prosecution where they had to keep upping the ante the longer they refused to drop it.

In Italy the prosecution and police act as one. I don't think they knew early if ever that the kids didn't do it or that the evidence didn't justify a conviction.

I will suggest that the police were aware that they had violated a criminal law (not merely a procedural law) in the interrogation of Amanda Knox: CP 377-bis, which provides for a prison term of 2-6 years for anyone convicted of inducing someone, through threat or violence, to make a false statement to a judicial authority. (Violation of procedural law generally only results in the inadmissibility of evidence.)

And how was Amanda going to prove this? You actually think Mignini or Comodi would have charged them? Does anyone know if Napoleoni and crew have been convicted of anything in the divorce related case?

If they had dropped everything within the week I'm pretty sure Amanda would have just moved on with her life. The head slaps would have become taps and she would have repeated her position that she understood the police's difficult task. She may even have become a true crime novelist.

 

[Numbers]

In Italy the prosecution and police act as one. I don't think they knew early if ever that the kids didn't do it or that the evidence didn't justify a conviction.



And how was Amanda going to prove this? You actually think Mignini or Comodi would have charged them? Does anyone know if Napoleoni and crew have been convicted of anything in the divorce related case?

If they had dropped everything within the week I'm pretty sure Amanda would have just moved on with her life. The head slaps would have become taps and she would have repeated her position that she understood the police's difficult task. She may even have become a true crime novelist.

{Highlighting added to quote.}

By the statements that she was coerced to make (or sign) during the interrogation. If there was no prosecution, she could purse the case at the ECHR, as a violation of Convention Article 3, which would potentially lead to an investigation by the Italian authorities.

After Lumumba was essentially dropped from the case and Guede added, why would the police or prosecutor, who knew how they had conducted the interrogation, and how Amanda's statements were obtained, think that they should continue to press charges?

 

[Strozzi]

She could have done the watering and had a swig off the bottle she bought him for his birthday.

Let's test Grinder's suspicion (theory) that Meredith might have taken a swig downstairs immediately before entering her upstairs flat.

If Meredith had stopped downstairs first to care for the cat and had a swig of wine or scotch, and then came upstairs and been attacked almost immediately in her bedroom (she was still wearing her jacket and had not yet tried again to phone her mother), wouldn't the swig of alcohol be in her stomach? How long does it take for a swig to enter the bloodstream, thereby boosting the blood alcohol level which is already elevated from the previous night's excessive drinking? Was alcohol found in her stomach?

 

[Grinder]

Let's test Grinder's suspicion (theory) that Meredith might have taken a swig downstairs immediately before entering her upstairs flat.

If Meredith had stopped downstairs first to care for the cat and had a swig of wine or scotch, and then came upstairs and been attacked almost immediately in her bedroom (she was still wearing her jacket and had not yet tried again to phone her mother), wouldn't the swig of alcohol be in her stomach? How long does it take for a swig to enter the bloodstream, thereby boosting the blood alcohol level which is already elevated from the previous night's excessive drinking? Was alcohol found in her stomach?

With a full stomach it should take longer to reach intestines but maybe old Lalli missed something. Some lit says 30 mins. The previous night's alcohol would have been gone as it was 16-17 hours after she returned from the party. Lalli found none

 

[Bill Williams]

I didn't see the prediction and certainly wasn't trying to call you on one.



I think group think is not directly related to incompetence. Group think can be correct or at least the kind you are talking about. I do not believe a recording exists and never did. I think they skipped lots of recordings because they would require transcriptions which would mean work. Cops are notorious for skimping on the written reports they produce.



They had a message sent just before Mez returned to the cottage. They reasonably thought the message meant they were meeting soon. I doubt Domino knew what see you later meant and besides it was written in Italian. Even here if Patrick had sent a text and Amanda responded see you later the police would have been suspicious - it's not like see you later negates the possibility of a meeting the same night



I'm not convinced they were in a big panic over mom. Why should they slow down?



True crime NOVELS are not a reliable source if there isn't independent corroboration or cites. [qimg]http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/hand-gestures/a-no-no-finger-hand-gesture-smiley-emoticon.gif[/qimg] as per request Just curious what would have happened if they released them and they escaped to Ecuador? What possibly would the police expect to gain by more observation?

And yet there it sits. We can have a dandy argument about the merits of true crime vs. others mediums, etc. Ad nauseum.

Whether an invention of Follain's or Chiacchiera really said it, I'm to the point of not caring.

It remains the one suggestion that if followed would have saved everyone 7 1/2 years of misery, including the Kerchers.

I've lost count of the number of professionals who've since quipped that in their jurisdiction the two, AK and RS would never have been charged.

That's the issue. Someone in the Questura that night SHOULD have been suggesting the two be let go.

It sticks there like a piece of dried chewing gum under an antique chair. If I were Chiacchiera in 2015, I'd be confirming Follain's story......

 

[Grinder]

And yet there it sits. We can have a dandy argument about the merits of true crime vs. others mediums, etc. Ad nauseum.

Whether an invention of Follain's or Chiacchiera really said it, I'm to the point of not caring.

It remains the one suggestion that if followed would have saved everyone 7 1/2 years of misery, including the Kerchers.

I've lost count of the number of professionals who've since quipped that in their jurisdiction the two, AK and RS would never have been charged. That's the issue. Someone in the Questura that night SHOULD have been suggesting the two be let go.

It sticks there like a piece of dried chewing gum under an antique chair. If I were Chiacchiera in 2015, I'd be confirming Follain's story......

Your dentist and ? They weren't charged for one year. The question at hand is whether it was reasonable to detain them not charge them. They thought the break in was staged. Staging usually would be done by residents in this situations. Raf's "nothing was taken" could be suspicious. Lack of specific memory of times of eating etc. Before anyone goes off I'm not saying these things made them guilty. It doesn't excuse their interrogation techniques. It doesn't excuse them not releasing them later.

It would be great if Chia would say anything about that night. Has anybody from the defense contacted him?

 

[Bill Williams]

Your dentist and ? They weren't charged for one year. The question at hand is whether it was reasonable to detain them not charge them. They thought the break in was staged. Staging usually would be done by residents in this situations. Raf's "nothing was taken" could be suspicious. Lack of specific memory of times of eating etc. Before anyone goes off I'm not saying these things made them guilty. It doesn't excuse their interrogation techniques. It doesn't excuse them not releasing them later.

It would be great if Chia would say anything about that night. Has anybody from the defense contacted him?

The first of the three great sections of Follain's True Crime account, is this: the cops were right to suspect AK and RS. On that point, you two are in agreement.

Actually - my dentist is a frequent poster to one of the guilt sites. I found this out just as she was coming at me with the freezing needle. Wasn't what I would call good timing.

The issue of detaining them, is even more ludicrous. They were detained without counsel, counsel being withheld until just before their first appearence. In Honor Bound, Raffaele details how he naively made a critical blunder at the first appearance, perhaps a blunder he would not have made if he'd met his lawyer anything other than moments before the hearing.

The three reasons for precautionary detention - flight risk, threat of tampering with evidence or reoffending. Which applied to those two under these circumstances?

Re: suspected staging of a crimescene. Mignini had to have been careful on that.... if he suspected this too soon, then AK and RS are suspects well before interrogation. Yet interrogation needs to at least get to 1:45 am in another of Mignini's accounts, because THAT'S when they became, formally, suspects acc. to him.

Was it reasonable for Mignini or anyone else to suspect a staging on the afternoon of Nov 2nd? I think not.

 

[Bill Williams]

It would be great if Chia would say anything about that night. Has anybody from the defense contacted him?

Might someone in England give Follain a call, and ask for his sources on the Chiacchiera claim? Seriously, next time I'm in Jolly Old, I can think of few I'd rather have a pint with. He's one.

 

[Numbers]

Your dentist and ? They weren't charged for one year. The question at hand is whether it was reasonable to detain them not charge them. They thought the break in was staged. Staging usually would be done by residents in this situations. Raf's "nothing was taken" could be suspicious. Lack of specific memory of times of eating etc. Before anyone goes off I'm not saying these things made them guilty. It doesn't excuse their interrogation techniques. It doesn't excuse them not releasing them later.

It would be great if Chia would say anything about that night. Has anybody from the defense contacted him?

{Highlighting added to quote.}

Your point on the detention needs some attention.

According to the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 5, there are limited reasons to detain someone in prison should there be reasonable suspicion that that person has committed a crime. There must be a lawful review, including review of the grounds of reasonable suspicion.

Article 5 § 1 (c)
“1. … No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
…
(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;”

Article 5 § 4
“4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.”

The remand of Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito, and Patrick Lumumba for one year (each) was ordered by the Nov. 9, 2007 report of Magistrate Matteini. See: https://matteinireport.wordpress.com/the-matteini-report/

The reasons given for the detention includes the (boilerplate) clause:
1. "In this case the need for precautionary measures lies in the risk [that the suspects will] interfere with the evidence and in the risk of repeated criminal activity."
and that two of the individuals were foreigners:
2. "That this case involves an American woman and a man from Zaire, who would have been able to leave State territory without difficulty in order to absent themselves from the investigation;
that the Italian man would have had the opportunity to leave Italy aided by Knox, with whom he was romantically linked, making establishing the facts more difficult;"

An example of the interference with evidence given in the report: that the suspects might talk to others and thus establish alibis.

The possibility of some less severe remand regime than prison (which exist in Italy, CPP Art. 284) and simply confiscating the passports of the individuals and ordering them not to leave the country (CPP Art. 281) is not discussed in the report. Considering that the report acknowledges that the individuals have no criminal record or character issues, the conclusion to order prison remand is striking. IMO, the remand as ordered would most likely be judged arbitrary by the ECHR if it came before that Court.

In terms of reasonable suspicion, the ECHR case-law includes the following:

69. A “reasonable suspicion” that a criminal offence has been committed presupposes the existence of facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that the person concerned may have committed an offence (Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, § 88; Erdagöz v. Turkey, § 51; Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. the United Kingdom, § 32). Therefore, a failure by the authorities to make a genuine inquiry into the basic facts of a case in order to verify whether a complaint was well-founded disclosed a violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) (Stepuleac v. Moldova, § 73; Elçi and Others v. Turkey, § 674).

Since all the allegations in the Matteini report against Knox, Sollecito, and Lumumba were in fact false or irrelevant, and had not been sufficiently or effectively investigated prior to the remand hearing, and since the statements derived from the Nov. 5/6, 2007 interrogation were in fact the product of a procedurally illegal interrogation that was actually (IMO) in violation of Article 3, at least with respect to Knox, there actually was no good-faith reasonable suspicion. Therefore, IMO, the ECHR would find this remand in violation of Article 5.1c on those grounds as well.

The fact that Knox and Sollecito were finally acquitted for not having committed the crime by the March 27, 2015 CSC hearing supports the opinion that the remand was unreasonable. Italian law provides for compensation for the remand period in such cases (CPP Art. 314).

ETA: ECHR quotes from GUIDE ON ARTICLE 5 – RIGHT TO LIBERTY AND SECURITY, a publication of the CoE/ECHR (c) 2014

 

[codyjuneau]

We were both wrong.

The blurry image demonstrates that there is a view through the window and therefore no curtain. I was assuming that the blur was comming from the curtain because in another view I could see that the window glass was clear. Upon closer examination I see that the window is double pane with one frosted and one clear.

Comparing the images from Nov 2 07:11 with Nov. 3 part 2 08:47 it is clear that the blurry pinkish object is the table cloth on the table. The object on the floor is much to low and to close to the door to be visible through the window at that camera angle. Moving on to index 08:57, we see that this item is actually inside the swing of the door where the door has clearly pushed most of the broken glass out of the way. It doesn't appear to be flat enough for the door to have passed over it so it must have been moved there after the door was opened. Further confirming this observation is that there does not appear to be any glass on top of it.

.
I agree that the angle of view in the Nov 2 video precludes the curtain being on the floor near to the door as it appears in the Nov 3 video.

I also agree that the curtain we see in the Nov 3 video arrived at that position after the door was opened and had swept the glass aside.

In the Nov 2 video, the pinkish white color, and the texture of the object we see still leads me to believe, albeit uncertainly because of the poor definition, that the curtain is in the view.

Perhaps the curtain was hanging on one of the chair backs when the window was broken and it is the curtain/table combo that we see. The curtain might have later fallen off the chair onto the floor.

In the Nov 3 part 2 video from 9:49 to 9:58 the back of the door can be seen. The image resolution and definition suck, but I do not see any hooks to hang a curtain on. This makes me question if the curtain is actually from the door. Since one of the panes of glass in the door was frosted, the occupants may not have felt the need for a curtain there.

Cody
.

 

[Grinder]

{Highlighting added to quote.}

Your point on the detention needs some attention.

According to the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 5, there are limited reasons to detain someone in prison should there be reasonable suspicion that that person has committed a crime. There must be a lawful review, including review of the grounds of reasonable suspicion.

I never said they should have been detained in prison. I said the arrest did not seem unreasonable that night. They should have been access to attorneys and released within no more than 72 hours. It would seem the Italian system violates ECHR rules. Italians allow suspects to be held a year without charges.

 

[analemma]

A curious article in a Portugese newspaper, responds reasonably well to google translate.

It concludes:

One gets the sense that there are British citizens first and second class. This case has passed and there was no scandal, no special television broadcasts. Now imagine if this case had happened in Portugal and want to PJ either the MP or the judges had done the same research, given the same charges and had been given such contradictory judgments. The scandal would be huge and the country would certainly be accused of being the Third World.

Are the Portugese aspiring to reach the status and respect Italy has, er, earned?

The article seems to think PR did the trick in getting acquittals.

http://www.cmjornal.xl.pt/domingo/detalhe/amanda_knox_historia_de_um_crime_perfeito.html

CURIOUS??? Indeed.
This was probably the most inaccurate article that I have read in any language.
Listen to this
"Rudy and Meredith meeting had the night before at a party in Perugia. They spent the night together in the victim's bedroom, having had sex.The next day woke up in the same bed, and at any given time, Rudy was the bathroom, which was shared by all the people who lived there.
He went to Meredith's room, having found it prostrate on the ground and found that she had been beheaded. Took the initiative to put a towel around the neck of the girl. It was then that he saw Amanda Knox to flee the scene. "
I am not sure that putting a towel around the neck is the appropriate medical procedure to treat a beheading: Just amazing: was the editor drunk?

And this
The weakest link in this case turned out to be the Ivorian Rudy Guede, perhaps the least guilty in any case and continues to serve a sentence of 16 years in prison since 2007 for sharing a homicide, that it practiced with Amanda Knox Raffaele Sollecito and. The same justice that condemned Rudy Guede had exonerated definitively their coarguidos.

And this?
One gets the sense that there are British citizens first and second class. This case has passed and there was no scandal, no special television broadcasts.
No Broadcasts?
None except the entire Italian and British tabliod feeding frezy of lies coupled with the BBC documentary that attempted to validate the ridiculous police fabrications with a logical process that twisted like a pretzel.

This is a Portuguese NEWSMAN expounding this bolderdash!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Samson]

CURIOUS??? Indeed.
This was probably the most inaccurate article that I have read in any language.
Listen to this
"Rudy and Meredith meeting had the night before at a party in Perugia. They spent the night together in the victim's bedroom, having had sex.The next day woke up in the same bed, and at any given time, Rudy was the bathroom, which was shared by all the people who lived there.
He went to Meredith's room, having found it prostrate on the ground and found that she had been beheaded. Took the initiative to put a towel around the neck of the girl. It was then that he saw Amanda Knox to flee the scene. "
I am not sure that putting a towel around the neck is the appropriate medical procedure to treat a beheading: Just amazing: was the editor drunk?

And this
The weakest link in this case turned out to be the Ivorian Rudy Guede, perhaps the least guilty in any case and continues to serve a sentence of 16 years in prison since 2007 for sharing a homicide, that it practiced with Amanda Knox Raffaele Sollecito and. The same justice that condemned Rudy Guede had exonerated definitively their coarguidos.

And this?
One gets the sense that there are British citizens first and second class. This case has passed and there was no scandal, no special television broadcasts.
No Broadcasts?
None except the entire Italian and British tabliod feeding frezy of lies coupled with the BBC documentary that attempted to validate the ridiculous police fabrications with a logical process that twisted like a pretzel.

This is a Portuguese NEWSMAN expounding this bolderdash!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Glad someone replied, I think deconstructing the european experience is of some interest...

 

[analemma]

Glad someone replied, I think deconstructing the european experience is of some interest...

How did you even FIND this article; In portuguese I mean?