• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hey I'm saying these guys did a good job. I'm not saying the Italian system works well. I'm only saying that it wasn't unreasonable for them to suspect staging. Once again, what would the evidence needed to show staging?

You're missing the point. The prosecution never presented any genuine evidence that it was "staged", so your question is moot. All they had were vague nonsense statements about the unsuitability of the window as an entry point for an intruder, and claims about glass on top of clothes which were not supported by photographs.
Now your moving to information they couldn't know at the beginning. Of course, no one heard the 8:45 glass breaking either. If Nara reported she heard breaking glass while having her tea, what would you say then? Why do you think the framers didn't get a witness to say the glass broke at midnight?

Impossible to read the minds of the prosecution as to what "evidence" they would try to present. The way the court cases worked out, it was as though they never thought they ever needed any evidence; and in fact under Massei and Nencini that confidence was borne out - all their assertions were simply accepted by the court.
It doesn't take expertise to make it look real. They would have just gone outside and thrown the rock as a truck passed by and then gone inside and and opened the window. They could have opened the shutters from the inside and then shut the inner ones. Then toss a few things or better yet start stacking them in a bag.

A well done staging would leave no evidence of being staged.

... which is exactly the point. In a fair trial, if "staging" is part of the prosecution's case, then the burden of proof lies with them. A court cannot simply conclude a "staging" without evidence - except, it seems, in Italy.
The best evidence would be such things as Raf's "nothing was taken" before he could know it.

Sorry - that's crap. The best evidence would be if the break-in couldn't be made to match the rest of the evidence. Once Guede came on the scene, and with the burglary having led to a murder, that mismatch disappeared.
In insurance fraud new insurance or a recently added item are keys.

Maybe - but that's not relevant here.
 
Testimony of VQA Dr. Edgardo Giobbi of the SCO: {Google translate}

T: I do not work in Perugia, I work in an office investigative center based in Rome, which among other skills also to intervene in support in support of mobile teams happen whenever the facts of particular gravity and eclatanza. On the basis of an assessment made by my superiors, immediately after the news of the murder of Meredith Kercher acquired was decided my submission here in Perugia with an investigative team of my office and I joined in support of the conduct and support of team Mobile Perugia at the time led by Dr Profazio. I arrived late in the afternoon of November 2, and I remember when I got the house, she was already there, there was Dr. Chiacchiera was the scientific staff, there was the staff of the squad. At first after shod shoe covers and gloves are entered to give me some, to acquire immediately sensations from the crime scene from the house, later that evening, always in agreement with her that was there, I spent a lot of studying the perimeter of the villa, that is, to see if we could get some answers or not immediate that it had entered into the house a thief, rather than instead was penetrated or entered some people's knowledge of the victim. The first detail is very clear that the door had not suffered break-ins, a second special was what the easiest access for a possible thief, that is, the window immediately in front of the room of the victim, the one from the porch was perfectly intact.

T: that which is hidden from the road, we say that is exactly the balcony above the entrance dell'appartamentino below. there doing a careful examination from the outside so not only from the inside I found that any one person could have been climbing for hands-free and go from there, break the window eg entering the house. According particular that was in tune with this was the fact that the broken window into the first room on the left, seemed short route in a way a bit special, not on the basis of my experience in investigative skin I do not think it was the work of someone coming of 'exterior, but at that stage I repeat this very instant of deductions that were simply allowed me to establish investigative trails, because we come and we start from scratch, somewhere we must also begin. Established say that this close scrutiny from the outside it was not possible, that is, someone who had gone according to my feelings, someone who was known by the Meredith we immediately focused attention on the people who frequented the house immediately and also simultaneously on people and the male subjects the boys who lived downstairs. Among other things regarding the apartment on the ground floor, below, because it is actually a basement to the plane that is almost at street level, there entering we had suffered the dramatic images of blood scattered throughout the house , which obviously just arrived to me as an investigator forced me to also establish priorities with the Scientific Police, the type, that I had to know immediately if the blood that was in the blood of the victim was, or why there was all this blood, we talk about the blood that was shed in all the rooms, there were stains on the wall, there was a duvet bedspread completely drenched, also because I would immediately understand that the development detective, I mean it is one thing that the action occurred only in the apartment above, another account of course it was alo started downstairs, because I then changed in short all the considerations, we say these were the immediate activities, the first activities that we put in place, then we started hear all the inhabitants of the house, both upstairs is downstairs, to check this immediately obviously, the alibis, in the belief that in that house had entered someone who was known by the victim had to check to force the alibis of tenants downstairs, the alibi of the inhabitants of the apartment of Meredith, so it was a frenzy of feedback that then led us in a very short time, I remember that in fact we slept very little the first few days, to make sure that all inhabitants of the boys downstairs still had an alibi, because they were not, it seems to me at least three out of four were not present in the city and the alibis were all found in those brands, in short, were in place, because there were confirmations and situations, then there was all we say, I call a cognitive behavioral survey ie a survey based on the observation of a lot at this point all I subjects and psychosomatic reactions that these individuals could have nell'incedere investigation, this was the phase.
 
Impossible to read the minds of the prosecution as to what "evidence" they would try to present. The way the court cases worked out, it was as though they never thought they ever needed any evidence; and in fact under Massei and Nencini that confidence was borne out - all their assertions were simply accepted by the court.


... which is exactly the point. In a fair trial, if "staging" is part of the prosecution's case, then the burden of proof lies with them. A court cannot simply conclude a "staging" without evidence - except, it seems, in Italy.

It always comes back to this, doesn't it. Here were are pounding away at our computers/smart devices about what the police knew and when they knew it.... and they were playing us for chumps.

... and it never was the point. Mignini knew he could get away with assertions. He knew the judges in Perugia, with perhaps the exception of Hellmann. He knew that three compatibilities equalled a judicial fact in those courts.

So why would they collect convincing forensics at the scene? They knew they could sell it in court with bluff and bluster - and they did. In two courts.

In fact it is worse than this. For the defence to complain, they were told, "What? You think the esteemed PM is lying? That's quite the charge. Do you wish to put that on the record and bear the consequences?"

It is proven that this is how Stefanoni was successful in withholding the raw data files, to prevent full disclosure. That even survived the Hellmann court for pete's sake.
 
Last edited:
Hey I'm saying these guys did a good job. I'm not saying the Italian system works well. I'm only saying that it wasn't unreasonable for them to suspect staging. Once again, what would the evidence needed to show staging?


That's simple. Inconsistencies. If the evidence showed that the window was actually broken from the inside. If there was in fact glass on top of items that were moved after the breakin. If the outside wall was pristine and showed no sign of someone having climed it. The problem here is that the evidence is entirely consistent with an actual breakin through Filomena's window. The glass distribution on the inside, the consistent layering of glass under the disturbed clothing seen in the crime scene photos, scuff marks on the outside wall and even the chipped hole where a nail once was.

All of the statements supporting a staging were first heard at trial a year or more after the initial investigation. The inconsistencies between what the investigators testified to and the contemporaneous evidence produced in the initial investigation indicates that the investigation was staged. The statements of the investigators had been altered to mislead the court. Claims of investigation activities were added after the fact. These were most likely adduced by the same interrogations techniques practiced to induce false memories.
 
...

Breaking news - It turns out staging is more frequent for murders.

I guess this course covers things that almost never happen.


I guess the postal police never took that course. Otherwise they would have known that when a simulated burglery is discovered, most likely there is a body near by.
 
Tesla you produce nothing and misread most everything.

What I said it said was that most stagings were associated with murders pointing out that insurance fraud wasn't number one - I had been wrong (back off Anglo, if I see that in your signature line there will be hell to pay).

I've admitted that I don't have access to crime stats you want but I offer the fact that an online course in investigations makes number 8 (that's the same as VIII, Tesla) staged burglaries that they aren't rare and a part of a basic course.

When I put "staged burglaries are rare" in da Google...not one hit.

Where are you Vixen?

Wow!!! You jump to insulting just for the fun of it? :eek:

I'd say I probably made a mistake in my original post saying that they were extremely rare. That said, I'm still very curious as to how often staging a burglary to cover a homicide actually happens. Your post, which I was responding to said they weren't unusual. And like a lot of words, that term has a broad range of meanings as well. While it may not be "extremely rare", I'm unconvinced that it is all that common or "usual".

I have been unable to find any actual statistics about staged crime scenes, so right now all I've seen is anecdotal evidence which is what I expected.

I do believe that for totally moronic reasons the investigators jumped to this conclusion that the burglary was faked. MAYBE. I say maybe, because you would think that for such an important tenet of their case, that they would have done a better job collecting evidence to prove such an idea.
 
Last edited:
He couldn't have heard that. There was only Amanda there.


What cop would not ask if anything was missing when reporting a breakin? Reffaele called his sister first and her first instainct as a cop, a sister and a friend would be to ask if anything was stollen. Amanda was right beside him so he would ask her if anything was stollen. And we have heard Amanda's testimony of having seen the TV, her own computer, the camera and sunglasses in Filomena's room and she would have responded that nothing appears to have been stolen. In the second call to 112, Raffaele simply skips the chater and provides the information: nothing was stolen. In the rush the statement has been abbreviated but the meaning is clear. The police know that it can often take considerable time to thouroughly inventory everything in a household to identify what is missing after an intrusion. The meaning of Raffaele's statement would properly be interpreted as: nothing is known to have been stollen at this time. It is only after Migning gets ahold of this case and starts twisting words does this innocent statement take on a guilty overtone.
 
Testimony of VQA Dr. Edgardo Giobbi of the SCO: {Google translate}

T: .... I spent a lot of studying the perimeter of the villa, that is, to see if we could get some answers or not immediate that it had entered into the house a thief, rather than instead was penetrated or entered some people's knowledge of the victim. The first detail is very clear that the door had not suffered break-ins, a second special was what the easiest access for a possible thief, that is, the window immediately in front of the room of the victim, the one from the porch was perfectly intact.

T: that which is hidden from the road, we say that is exactly the balcony above the entrance dell'appartamentino below. there doing a careful examination from the outside so not only from the inside I found that any one person could have been climbing for hands-free and go from there, break the window eg entering the house.

According particular that was in tune with this was the fact that the broken window into the first room on the left, seemed short route in a way a bit special, not on the basis of my experience in investigative skin I do not think it was the work of someone coming of 'exterior, but at that stage I repeat this very instant of deductions that were simply allowed me to establish investigative trails, because we come and we start from scratch, somewhere we must also begin. Established say that this close scrutiny from the outside it was not possible, that is, someone who had gone according to my feelings, someone who was known by the Meredith we immediately focused attention on the people who frequented the house immediately and also simultaneously on people and the male subjects the boys who lived downstairs.....

then we started hear all the inhabitants of the house, both upstairs is downstairs, to check this immediately obviously, the alibis, in the belief that in that house had entered someone who was known by the victim had to check to force the alibis of tenants downstairs, the alibi of the inhabitants of the apartment of Meredith,....

I call a cognitive behavioral survey ie a survey based on the observation of a lot at this point all I subjects and psychosomatic reactions that these individuals could have nell'incedere investigation, this was the phase.

How should one evaluate Giobbi's testimony? At face value, IIUC, he states that his expertise shows him that the apparent break-in was staged, and not real. That means someone who knew Meredith and had access to the apartment (such as with a key, or through the victim's friendship) was responsible.

I do not find his statements credible for a supposedly expert police investigator. The break-in must be either "real" or "staged". To judge it staged based on the investigator's estimate of how a real burglar would enter seems to suggest that such burglars are highly constrained in how they operate, which I find not believable. The analysis of the balcony as being not visible from the road is, IIUC, false; Filomena's window is one which is essentially not visible from the road, based on Google views.

Therefore, and because of Giobbi's attribution of the blood on the light switch to the cat with the bloody ear jumping, and his bizarre use of "behavioral" investigation, I conclude that the explanation of the staged break-in and behavioral analysis was actually an attempt at a plausible cover-up for the identification of a suspect of convenience, the person with the alibi that was easiest to destroy: Amanda Knox, whose alibi relied on her having spent the night with Raffaele Sollecito. Destruction of her alibi thus required his arrest. This motivated the near-simultaneous interrogations of Nov. 5/6, 2007, with their violations of procedural laws, which Giobbi claimed in his testimony to have ordered and monitored.

ETA: Also, the Nov. 5/6, 2007 interrogations were required, as I have previously stated, to generate "reasonable suspicion" for the grounds of the arrest warrant that would survive (superficial) judicial review. The "suspicions" prior to the interrogations were of such a vague and bizarre (behavioral) nature that they might not pass muster with even the pro-prosecution Italian judiciary.
 
Last edited:
Taken from this vantage point post facto it is clear that neither AK nor RS knew anything about the crime. If Raffaele said, "nothing is stolen," the only thing of import is if that betrays a knowledge of aspects of the crime only a perp would know.

Yes, only a perp would know.
 
This was after Amanda talked to Filomena (the second call) and surely Filomena asked and Amanda probably answered she didn't see anything missing. Raf was probably repeating what he had overheard.

Or as I said up-thread, they together could have looked in F's room and said to each other "computer and camera are there, it doesn't look like anything is missing, weird."

Later when Amanda and Raf independently told the PLE that is how he came to it when calling 911 I'm sure they would released them both immediately :rolleyes:
 
Serenity Now, Serenity Now

You're missing the point. The prosecution never presented any genuine evidence that it was "staged", so your question is moot. All they had were vague nonsense statements about the unsuitability of the window as an entry point for an intruder, and claims about glass on top of clothes which were not supported by photographs.

This conversation is about the beginning not the end. The court case isn't the issue.

Impossible to read the minds of the prosecution as to what "evidence" they would try to present. The way the court cases worked out, it was as though they never thought they ever needed any evidence; and in fact under Massei and Nencini that confidence was borne out - all their assertions were simply accepted by the court.

Did I say somewhere I agreed with either of those courts? I'll save you some time and tell you. No.


... which is exactly the point. In a fair trial, if "staging" is part of the prosecution's case, then the burden of proof lies with them. A court cannot simply conclude a "staging" without evidence - except, it seems, in Italy.

And we go on with the straw man.

Sorry - that's crap. The best evidence would be if the break-in couldn't be made to match the rest of the evidence. Once Guede came on the scene, and with the burglary having led to a murder, that mismatch disappeared.

What evidence would you accept to prove a staging? So if it matches the rest of the evidence that's proof it isn't staged but if it matches then it can't be staged? Obviously successful stagings match the evidence. Tesla, damn near impossible to prove anyone ever got away except common sense.

You understand when one stages one is trying to match the rest of the scene.
 
That's simple. Inconsistencies. If the evidence showed that the window was actually broken from the inside. If there was in fact glass on top of items that were moved after the breakin. If the outside wall was pristine and showed no sign of someone having climed it. The problem here is that the evidence is entirely consistent with an actual breakin through Filomena's window. The glass distribution on the inside, the consistent layering of glass under the disturbed clothing seen in the crime scene photos, scuff marks on the outside wall and even the chipped hole where a nail once was.

The rock was thrown from the exact same spot we all think Rudi threw it. Looks exactly like a real break in because it was done as if a real break in was happening.
 
This conversation is about the beginning not the end. The court case isn't the issue.

Excuse me? The court case isn't the issue? Sorry, it is the issue, even at the beginning. As it is necessary to build a case and if you can't do that then there is a responsibility to drop the case.

Grinder said:
What evidence would you accept to prove a staging? So if it matches the rest of the evidence that's proof it isn't staged but if it matches then it can't be staged? Obviously successful stagings match the evidence. Tesla, damn near impossible to prove anyone ever got away except common sense.

You understand when one stages one is trying to match the rest of the scene.

Let's see, what evidence would prove the staging? Hmmmmmmm

How about most of the glass being found outside as opposed to inside the room.
How about looking at the glass edge to see which side it was broken.

There was in fact NO real evidence that the break in was staged, only a claim that it was staged.

They seized on two clues that led them to their misguided claim. One, the window was too high at first glance and two, nothing appeared stolen. (I don't actually buy the glass was on top nonsense...I think that was an ex post facto attempt to create some kind of physical evidence)
 
The rock was thrown from the exact same spot we all think Rudi threw it. Looks exactly like a real break in because it was done as if a real break in was happening.

Kind of convenient don't you think? It's because it looked real is why it was fake.

Hmmm..sounds like a self fulfilling delusion.
 
Excuse me? The court case isn't the issue? Sorry, it is the issue, even at the beginning. As it is necessary to build a case and if you can't do that then there is a responsibility to drop the case.

This was about the beginning. Not the end. As I've said along the way the staging should have been dropped.

Let's see, what evidence would prove the staging? Hmmmmmmm

How about most of the glass being found outside as opposed to inside the room.
How about looking at the glass edge to see which side it was broken.

There was in fact NO real evidence that the break in was staged, only a claim that it was staged.

Yes Tesla except in this case the perps went outside and threw the rock exactly like Rudi did so the evidence was identical to the real break in. Is it so hard for you to understand that staging can't be proven if it was done right?

They seized on two clues that led them to their misguided claim. One, the window was too high at first glance and two, nothing appeared stolen. (I don't actually buy the glass was on top nonsense...I think that was an ex post facto attempt to create some kind of physical evidence)

Maybe Nina or Follain have something for you. Nothing stolen, Raf said so in first 911 call, looked like the wrong window, glass on things that had been "tossed" and of course motive.
 
Kind of convenient don't you think? It's because it looked real is why it was fake.

Hmmm..sounds like a self fulfilling delusion.

Staged things are always done to make them look real. Do you think Raf is too dumb to know how to make it look like a real break in? Do you really think he would have thrown the rock from the inside out. Not even you would do that :p.

If they were staging they would have done exactly how it was done. Would you tell us how they would do it if not exactly like you think Rudi did it?
 
Staged things are always done to make them look real. Do you think Raf is too dumb to know how to make it look like a real break in? Do you really think he would have thrown the rock from the inside out. Not even you would do that :p.

If they were staging they would have done exactly how it was done. Would you tell us how they would do it if not exactly like you think Rudi did it?

So the point is that the evidence doesn't prove the claim...but that doesn't matter? I guess the defendants are screwed.

All the while the cops had a suspect who had a clear history of committing break ins.But the of course the break in was staged because it looked real. Yeeeaaahh, now I get it.:boxedin:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom