Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[analemma]

I can't agree that what Moore said on March 7, 2007 was a little error. He could be sued for it and I wouldn't doubt that Mignini if aware of might not just do it and he would win.

Moore said on March 7, 2007
What did more say on March 7, 2007
I am new here, but I thought that March 7, 2007 was six months before the murder

 

[Dan O.]

Here is a relevant quote from Barbie's book.

"Several days later, when Raffaele was arrested, police searched his apartment and found a receipt for Ace brand bleach, purchased the morning of November 4, 2007, at 8:15. That bleach was probably used to clean his shoes and maybe even the knife." Ch. 3

Wow! We even know the time of day the bleach was bought. Case closed!
I agree with Grinder in that in order to know the truth we must study the lies and where they came from.

Barbie cannot be the origin of the bleach reciept story. She was off test driving a Lamborghini and didn't roll into town until the 14th.

 

[Numbers]

I can't agree that what Moore said on March 7, 2007 was a little error. He could be sued for it and I wouldn't doubt that Mignini if aware of might not just do it and he would win. .....

Grinder, I do want to thank you for pointing out that Barbie Nadeau had written about the Perugian police press conference of Nov. 2007. But would you be so kind as to provide the reference citation? I have tried searching on Google for it, but get so many other hits I can't readily find Barbie's article. Was it only in her book?

If one can assume that Moore was relying on a contemporaneous Barbie news article on the presser, does that reduce his responsibility for his seemingly confused statement, in your opinion? If Nadeau attributed false statements about bleach and/or receipts to Mignini or someone else, do you believe that she is liable to be sued for defamation?

Please check the date you have provided for Steve Moore's statement above. As analemma points out, it is actually before the murder of Meredith Kercher. Are you stating that Moore had pre-knowledge of these events, or is there a typo?

 

[Bill Williams]

I don't get it. True there is no reason not to drill down, what I'm scratching my head for is the reason to do it - it seems (YMMV) that the intent is to embarrass those who - weirdly - got it right!!!!

I think Grinder is just trying to play devil's advocat. What he is doing though is attacking old positions which were not incorrect at the time due to the limited availability of information or inconsequential mistakes. Those arguments won't do us any good because we had already accepted the position Grinder is pushing and the author of the position he is attacking is not likely to see his posts here.

You may be putting it more succinctly than I. Thanks.

Surely there was difference of opinion among the early supporters, how could there not be. The prosecution controled the defendants and all information. The PLE saw to it that the completely red-stained bathroom photo was released, and left it up to innocentisti to discover it was the residual of the chemical to test the bathroom, not blood itself.

The Raw Data Files were withheld from the world, and the court with the court's consent, and it was left up to innocentisti to drill down on what that was about.

It's amazing there were not more disagreement among supporters early on. The question: why does it linger now when both these "sides" within supporters have been proven right?

As one post says there - the real issue is that even at this point, we still do not know much about Rudy Guede. It was left to the likes of Nina Burleigh and Steve Moore to drill down on that one.

Did they get it 100% right? I have no clue. Yet that a cloak of silence from "officialdom" remains to this day about Rudy is...... hmmmmmmmmmmmm......

....... but not a reason to get all persnickety about past rivalries.

 

[Bill Williams]

The police wanted to solve the case quickly. They were supremely overconfident in their professional instinct. They went with first impressions and after that confirmation bias took hold. Then it became a battle of wills. The police and prosecutors became victims of tunnel vision. They did not secure the crime scene for six weeks. They didn't collect important pieces of evidence, including the victim's purse and bloody clothing for many weeks! They left the clothing of the main suspect, Amanda, in her room, and then claimed that it was missing! And then they found it. ( Oops! )

This wasn't mere incompetence. It was gross incompetence. The supposed expert, Stefanoni, doesn't change gloves while collecting evidence and neglegently gets blood on her gloves while swabbing blood samples. And this is their expert! The police computer experts destroyed three computer hard drives ( oops again! ) and apparently lost Amanda's digital camera ( oops! #3).

The police almost immediately suspect that the break-in was faked because of glass on top of clothing, nothing was stolen, the burglar would have had to climb four meters and the rock was too heavy to be thrown through the second story window from below. So, was this crime scene investigated? Of course not! Why bother? They do not even have a photo of glass on top of the clothes.

So it's obviously an inside job. Next they observe the behavior of the occupants and determine who is behaving suspiciously. Then the police record the suspects conversations covertly and then after four days of interrogation subject them to the Reid technique and break them. In less than a week, voila!, case closed.

Yes, there is a mystery. It is why anyone still believes anything that the police and prosecutors have said.

This.

 

[Bill Williams]

Grinder is Grinder. He has always nitpicked. But he keeps us on our toes. He'll jump back on here to say that Moore's statement (which was wrong) is not a nitpick I don't agree with Moore's opinion that Rudy was some kind of informer just because the cops in Milan let him go. Rudy was not from Milan and this was a petty crime ( criminal trespass and posession of stolen goods) And maybe the jail was full and the cops didn't want to house him.

But I also think Moore is a smart cop and a smart articlate advocate. 99.9999 percent of the public will never know Moore made this mistake and even fewer would care.

The hilitied part is fundamentally why I like the guy!. My toes ache because of his nitpicking, but it is, in the main, a good thing. The strange thing is that as much as I respect Moore's opinions, I am not convinced by the Rudy-conspiracy. However, that may be a criticism of me - that I simply do not have the background to see what Moore sees.

Still, I don't see it. And on the other thing, why, then, in post-exoneration 2015 the agenda to embarrass early-FOA's who got it right (in the main!)?

 

[Numbers]

Stefano Bonassi witness statement 2-Nov-2007: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Stefano-Bonassi-Statement-2-Nov-2007.pdf

page 3

MichaelB, thanks for providing this eye-opening quote from Stefano Bonassi and all the other important information you post here.

This quote shows that the police were made aware of the potential for an intruder to gain access to the flat by means of the grate over the ground-floor window as early as Nov. 2. They choose not to follow-up on this realistic information. Why?

To clarify my previous post on "Why?" I should add that the police during the investigation were under the prosecutor's direction in compliance with Italian procedural law. His obsessions and legal problems from his earlier abuses of power, including false arrests and bizarre theories such as the double-body switch, would have played a significant role in police actions. The police may have resorted to rationalizations (Giobbi's "behavioral investigation") to explain away why they were following Mignini's pathological directions.

 

[Grinder]

Moore said on March 7, 2007
What did more say on March 7, 2007
I am new here, but I thought that March 7, 2007 was six months before the murder

Sorry for typo - 2015 it had been correctly noted elsewhere here.

 

[carbonjam72]

would or could?

MichaelB, thanks for providing this eye-opening quote from Stefano Bonassi and all the other important information you post here.

This quote shows that the police were made aware of the potential for an intruder to gain access to the flat by means of the grate over the ground-floor window as early as Nov. 2. They choose not to follow-up on this realistic information. Why?

To clarify my previous post on "Why?" I should add that the police during the investigation were under the prosecutor's direction in compliance with Italian procedural law. His obsessions and legal problems from his earlier abuses of power, including false arrests and bizarre theories such as the double-body switch, would have played a significant role in police actions. The police may have resorted to rationalizations (Giobbi's "behavioral investigation") to explain away why they were following Mignini's pathological directions.

+1, thanks MichaelB for these great posts.

Numbers, while I agree with much of what you've posted, the hilighted is still speculative. I would say we are more in the realm of "could" than "would".

It's the dogged assumption that what we think plausible, MUST therefore have happened, that seems to be an error we often repeat here on this thread.

Giobbi came from Rome, and was with the Serious Criimes Unit (mafia, terrorists, serial killers). I'm not sure if Giobbi was part of Guittari's GIDES unit, specifically created to track down the "masterminds" in the imaginary satanic sect Guittari thought responsible for the Monster of Florence crimes. (The GIDES unit was disbanded in summer of 2006, after the debacle of Mignini arrest and subsequent release of Mario Spezi).

Finding a big fish criminal in the Kercher case makes Giobbi seem more important too. If Ms Kercher was killed by a lone burglar caught in the act, that's not a serious crime, and not much reason for Giobbi to be there. Catching a big criminal is a feather in Giobbi's hat. I think he made space on his trophy wall before he even left Rome on Day 1.

Giobbi was going to catch a prize when he left for Perugia on Nov 2, 2007, and he did, and only by psychological evidence too!

 

[Grinder]

If one takes a sentence from a quote such as the Barbie story it pops right up when using Google probably Bing as well.

This is the URL http://www.newsweek.com/italy-new-suspect-sex-murder-96453

11/18/2007 - this is the earliest my search found but I believe Dan O. had something from 11/16.

 

[Grinder]

So it's getting a bit boring to keep banging on about the guy when no one here even thinks Guede was an informant nor did Moore bring anything unique or important to the public domain about the murder of Meredith, the evidence or the investigation....such as finding another victim of Guede's or crime he committed or a whistleblower etc.

Since that's the case I'm pleased.

 

[Dan O.]

If one takes a sentence from a quote such as the Barbie story it pops right up when using Google probably Bing as well.

This is the URL http://www.newsweek.com/italy-new-suspect-sex-murder-96453

11/18/2007 - this is the earliest my search found but I believe Dan O. had something from 11/16.

This is what I have in my wiki:

Barbie's first article about Perugia was published On the 15th. There is no mention in her report of any active investigation at the cottage. On the 10th she published an article on Maserati's and on the 11th publishes a short article about the highlight of her life when she got to test drive one. The turnaround on her publications is quite short, less than a day for that last article. She appears to be on a tour of Italy and writing articles. Nov. 3rd was spent sampling Pínot Noir.
2007-11-10 Newsweekly [test driving a Maserati]
2007-11-14 [Dickie's photo blog, photos by B.N., Sony]
​

Christopher Dickie is Barbie's editor. The photos were taken the morning of November 14 and posted to the personal blog on the 16th.

 

[Dan O.]

Stefano Bonassi witness statement 2-Nov-2007: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Stefano-Bonassi-Statement-2-Nov-2007.pdf

page 3

I would also like to point out that the house we occupy presents notable security problems, both because of its location in a poorly lit place, well known to be frequented by drug addicts, as we happened to observe, judging by the presence of numerous syringes for instance; and because the door of the upstairs apartment occupied by the girls had been broken for a long time and the owners had also been notified. Moreover, Meredith's room especially is easily accessible through the balcony, and because there is the window grate of the downstairs apartment below, by which a wrongdoer could easily gain access to it.

What do you think "it" refers to? I contend that the only suitable object in that sentance for "it" is the balcony for which the grate would be the full height security gate on the door under the balcony. Filomena's window is not even mentioned.

 

[MichaelB]

What do you think "it" refers to? I contend that the only suitable object in that sentance for "it" is the balcony for which the grate would be the full height security gate on the door under the balcony. Filomena's window is not even mentioned.

Yep, you're right. Alex replied to you on IA. He says the translation should read as:

Moreover, Meredith's room especially is easily accessible through the balcony, not least because there is the window grate of the downstairs apartment below it [the balcony], by which a wrongdoer could easily gain entry.

not

and because there is the window grate of the downstairs apartment below, by which a wrongdoer could easily gain access to it.

So he's still referring to the balcony.

 

[Dougm]

You may be putting it more succinctly than I. Thanks.

Surely there was difference of opinion among the early supporters, how could there not be. The prosecution controled the defendants and all information. The PLE saw to it that the completely red-stained bathroom photo was released, and left it up to innocentisti to discover it was the residual of the chemical to test the bathroom, not blood itself.

The Raw Data Files were withheld from the world, and the court with the court's consent, and it was left up to innocentisti to drill down on what that was about.

It's amazing there were not more disagreement among supporters early on. The question: why does it linger now when both these "sides" within supporters have been proven right?

As one post says there - the real issue is that even at this point, we still do not know much about Rudy Guede. It was left to the likes of Nina Burleigh and Steve Moore to drill down on that one.

Did they get it 100% right? I have no clue. Yet that a cloak of silence from "officialdom" remains to this day about Rudy is...... hmmmmmmmmmmmm......

....... but not a reason to get all persnickety about past rivalries.

Hi Bill --

I've been a bit confused by your recent posts. You have been referencing mistakes by "early" FOA. Who and/or what positions are you referring to? I thought this was about Steve Moore and Jim Clemente, neither of whom were involved early on. My impression of the people that were involved as advocates for innocence early in the case pretty much nailed it. If there is any debate, it is about later speculation on various topics about why, how, etc.

Or did I miss something?

 

[Numbers]

....

To clarify my previous post on "Why?" I should add that the police during the investigation were under the prosecutor's direction in compliance with Italian procedural law. His obsessions and legal problems from his earlier abuses of power, including false arrests and bizarre theories such as the double-body switch, would have played a significant role in police actions. The police may have resorted to rationalizations (Giobbi's "behavioral investigation") to explain away why they were following Mignini's pathological directions.

....
Numbers, while I agree with much of what you've posted, the hilighted is still speculative. I would say we are more in the realm of "could" than "would". It's the dogged assumption that what we think plausible, MUST therefore have happened, that seems to be an error we often repeat here on this thread.....

I believe that different people and different organizations may work toward the same end with different motivations.

I am not indicating in my statement that the police were only motivated by Mignini's obsessions. But the police are legally obligated in Italy to follow the direction of the Public Minister (prosecutor) who is assigned to the case. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable about Italian law than I am could explain if there were some way for the police investigators not to follow the prosecutor's direction.

The police may have been motivated, in my view, by the "convenient suspects" path. That means selecting a "suspect" or victim with a weak alibi who can be accused of the crime on the basis of weak, unreliable, or non-existent evidence. Or perhaps even fabricated evidence, as long as the fabrication is subtle enough not to get the police into trouble. Amanda Knox was the convenient suspect identified by the police; Giobbi IMO states this in his testimony, where he covers his real thinking with behavioral or psychological detection BS.

I can't exclude the possibility that Guede was an informant the police were protecting, but that seems less plausible that the "convenient suspect" hypothesis to me.

Mignini had his own reasons for pursuing Amanda Knox based on his own obsessions, abusiveness, and pathology. I suggest that metaphorically, Mignini is one of the Devil's handpuppets in Italy.

 

[carbonjam72]

I believe that different people and different organizations may work toward the same end with different motivations.

I am not indicating in my statement that the police were only motivated by Mignini's obsessions. But the police are legally obligated in Italy to follow the direction of the Public Minister (prosecutor) who is assigned to the case. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable about Italian law than I am could explain if there were some way for the police investigators not to follow the prosecutor's direction.

The police may have been motivated, in my view, by the "convenient suspects" path. That means selecting a "suspect" or victim with a weak alibi who can be accused of the crime on the basis of weak, unreliable, or non-existent evidence. Or perhaps even fabricated evidence, as long as the fabrication is subtle enough not to get the police into trouble. Amanda Knox was the convenient suspect identified by the police; Giobbi IMO states this in his testimony, where he covers his real thinking with behavioral or psychological detection BS.

I can't exclude the possibility that Guede was an informant the police were protecting, but that seems less plausible that the "convenient suspect" hypothesis to me.
Mignini had his own reasons for pursuing Amanda Knox based on his own obsessions, abusiveness, and pathology. I suggest that metaphorically, Mignini is one of the Devil's handpuppets in Italy.

Yes, I pretty much agree with all of this. I highlighted judt to emphasize that these ideas are not mutually exclusive, imo. Guede could well have been an informer, AND, Amanda and Raf convenient & vulnerable suspects.

I'd say its a certainty that there isn't a single mindset or belief operating in any group dynamic.

Fact is though, we don't know how closely Mignini was supervising the investigation. Hands on, or 30,000 foot flyover?

Its pretty clear Mignini had an agenda, to reshape the Kercher killing into the same mold he had chased after in the Narducci Trail, and for which he was just then indicted.

The police who tracked Guede, apparently followed up on Bonassi's mention of Guede on Nov 3/4, about an unflushed turd. That's how they ID'd Rudy. And at that point, Mignini had to integrate these two investigative strands - a coerced staement from Knox on the one hand, and evidence against ONLY guede on the other.

And Mignini's interpretation, suited his professional needs at the time. But the police investigation appeared to run on different tracks, and in a not very well coordinated fashion. But they did find Rudy, and fairly quickly, so that investigative track really performed pretty well. It's Mignini, Giobbi, Napoleoni & Ficarra who screwed it all up by pressuring vulnerable witnesses into false statements.

 

[Numbers]

Yep, you're right. Alex replied to you on IA. He says the translation should read as:



not



So he's still referring to the balcony.

Thanks again to you and Alex_K. I understand now that the potential for a climb to the balcony was Bonassi's concern. However, unbiased police would have looked at the grate under Filomena's window as another possible entry method, especially given Bonassi's Nov. 2 statement.

 

[carbonjam72]

Thanks again to you and Alex_K. I understand now that the potential for a climb to the balcony was Bonassi's concern. However, unbiased police would have looked at the grate under Filomena's window as another possible entry method, especially given Bonassi's Nov. 2 statement.

If Bonassi thought, and told the police that the gratings over first floor window made easy climb-ups to the second floor, why did the police and Mignini continue to insist the very similar grate assisted climb to Filomena's window was so difficult?

I just don't believe it's an honest an answer. Same thing with the 'covering the body with the duvet is a female gesture". The dubious nature of these statements lends to the inference that Guede was being protected by police on day 1, IUAM.

 

[MichaelB]

Thanks again to you and Alex_K. I understand now that the potential for a climb to the balcony was Bonassi's concern. However, unbiased police would have looked at the grate under Filomena's window as another possible entry method, especially given Bonassi's Nov. 2 statement.

Thanks Numbers. Sure thing. There's still a few more to come.