Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Grinder said:
So he used mind control to get her to come in?
The call asked for only Raf according to Amanda's book.

Just out of curiosity where is the part not in quotes from?

I looked online for it and low and behold this was the hit:

this is Frank Sfarzo on Perugia Shock:

“MIGNINI WAS THERE AND THE INTERROGATION WAS VIDEO RECORDED” January 31, 2012

“I gave the order, to bring them both in together” –Giobbi revealed at the trial. “So, as soon as the room was ready, with the camera set up and everything, she was called in”

“I was in a room together with the prosecutor Mignini” –Giobbi adds– “We were watching the interrogation, so to study her reactions”.

“So, Giobbi reveals that Mignini was present! He is responsible, then, for everything that happened that night.”

But in the court transcript Dr Giobbi says nothing of the kind. The only other observer was Dr Profazio, the head of the Flying Squad. Dr Mignini was at home in bed.

And in his testimony there was zero mention of any camera. There was no recording. They were merely puzzling over Sollecito’s and Knox’s behavior.


Now I don't like TJMK or other PGP sites but that was what came up. You can read what their court translation is.

Remember last week Thoughtful's translation was used to prove Guede's changing story during a Skype - it also turned out to be the source for CD's blog.

ETA - here's the alleged testimony http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Edgardo_Giobbi's_Testimony

same site of the Skype proof
Click to expand...

Yes, that's the ONLY way it could have happened. No other way.
 
Grinder said:
As I said and gave the cite, he didn't call them both in as Amanda herself wrote in her book. Without going out to research other details I remember that after this account was published that other information showed other errors. IIRC Mignini was sleeping upstairs and was awakened but I'd have to verify that as it's been a while.

There is no question that Giobbi misrepresented his calling them both in "with mathematical certainty"

I think it was tea and cakes. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Giobbi didn't say he called them in. He said he gave orders to call them both in. Raffaele was called in. Giobbi's intent was to bring Amanda in too and the police who called in Raffaele were apparently going to interrogate him first to get something they could claim as reason to call her in (pick her up later at night - she did not have transportation). She would have heard a late night knock on Raffaele's apartment door.

Giobbi said Police Chief de Felice was with him in the control room some of the time. I maintain that as the interrogation intensified and Napoleoni occasionally came to the control room to confer, de Felice would have remained there. He would not have excused himself. He was there, especially as it heated up.
 
Last edited:
Strozzi said:
Giobbi didn't say he called them in. He said he gave orders to call them both in. Raffaele was called in. Giobbi's intent was to bring Amanda in too and the police who called in Raffaele were apparently going to interrogate him first to get something they could claim as reason to call her in (pick her up later at night - she did not have transportation). She would have heard a late night knock on Raffaele's apartment door.

Giobbi said Police Chief de Felice was with him in the control room some of the time. I maintain that as the interrogation intensified and Napoleoni occasionally came to the control room to confer, de Felice would have remained there. He would not have excused himself. He was there, especially as it heated up.
Click to expand...

and as I said he didn't call them both in. Amanda clearly states that only raf was asked in. Guess the big bosses orders weren't followed :rolleyes:
 
Diocletus said:
I believe that Guede's fast-track trial was for some reason combined with the Knox/Sollecito arraignment. However, among other problems, it wasn't their "trial" (it was only a preceding to see if they could be tried), they had incomplete disclosure from the prosecution, and they couldn't appeal.
Click to expand...

I am not sure about the exact arrangement of the Knox/Sollecito preliminary hearing (arraignment) and the Guede fast-track trial. I believe the same judge was responsible for both and that they occurred on or about the same day(s). But IIUC, the Knox and Sollecito defense lawyers could not participate (question, object, or appeal) to any of the Guede fast-track trial proceedings.
 
2. Giobbi's Account: To the right is Edgardo Giobbi, the police chief from Rome who testified a few months after the female officers. His account contains important contradictions to that of the female officers.

Contradiction #1: Ficarra, Napoleoni and Zuaringi all stated that only Raffaelle was called in for an interrogation. In fact, as Frank Sfarzo of Perugia-Shock points out, these officers actually testified that they rebuked Amanda over and over again for coming to the police station in the first place, stating that the call was only for Raffaelle to be brought to the station. This Raffaelle only invitation is directly contradicted by Giobbi's testimony, who stated that he was "mathematically sure" that he gave the order to have both Amanda Knox and Raffaelle brought to the station for questioning.
 
Grinder said:
and as I said he didn't call them both in. Amanda clearly states that only raf was asked in. Guess the big bosses orders weren't followed :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

What seems logical and fits the facts is what I would have done if I were the cops. Not wanting to tip them off that they were the prime suspects, but also knowing that Amanda followed everywhere Raffaele went, I would have called and asked Raffaele to come in, and assumed Amanda would come along. It was about a 95% certainty, worth the risk.

Of course they wanted both of them to come in, does anyone doubt that? If, in the case of the 5% happening, and for some reason she didn't come along, they would have gone to get her once they got Raffaele to crack. She wouldn't have been hard to find.
 
Grinder said:
2. Giobbi's Account: To the right is Edgardo Giobbi, the police chief from Rome who testified a few months after the female officers. His account contains important contradictions to that of the female officers.

Contradiction #1: Ficarra, Napoleoni and Zuaringi all stated that only Raffaelle was called in for an interrogation. In fact, as Frank Sfarzo of Perugia-Shock points out, these officers actually testified that they rebuked Amanda over and over again for coming to the police station in the first place, stating that the call was only for Raffaelle to be brought to the station. This Raffaelle only
invitation is directly contradicted by Giobbi's testimony, who stated that he was "mathematically sure" that he gave the order to have both Amanda Knox and Raffaelle brought to the station for questioning.
Click to expand...


Grinder,
You do this all the time,
were is your link to what you are posting???


By the way,
Do you or do you not believe what the Judge said?
"As for the flight risk, it is still present. Your family lives in the United States, so it would be extremely easy for you to leave the country. The fact that you did not do so before you were arrested is totally irrelevant. We must remind you that your arrest was made very early, and was effected purposely before the arrival of your mother in order to avoid just such a possibility."


My link is up above,
in an earlier posting.
 
Grinder said:
and as I said he didn't call them both in. Amanda clearly states that only raf was asked in. Guess the big bosses orders weren't followed :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


I've got Amanda's book somewhere around my place,
maybe I'll dig it up.

But you know what?
How would Amanda know what Giobbi said to do?

ETA:
Both were trying, if I recall correctly, to regain some normalacy back in their young lives.
hangin' out with 1 of Raff's bro's, havin' something to eat, good conversation, havin' fun hangin', gettin' smoked.

What,
did the cops tell Raff to leave the chick at home?
They knew where she was, right?
Weren't they already under surf-veilance at the time?

* * *

Once again,
I gotta wonder Grinder,
do you believe the Judge or was she lying too?
 
Last edited:
Planigale said:
The answer is Callunia is a criminal conviction not a civil offence. There used to be in England an offence of criminal slander that could result in imprisonment. Callunia is more nearly equivalent to perjury - making false statements to official authorities, rather than slander.

In Italy a civil case is heard alongside the criminal. So civil compensation is awarded to the injured parties as a result of the criminal conviction. This is why they are interested parties, they have an interest in making the accused looking as wicked as possible to maximise their compensation. Thus the Kerchers were awarded damages, as was Lumumba.
Click to expand...

Planigale,

Thanks for reminding us that calunnia is a criminal charge in Italy; it is not "slander" as a tort, but "making a false accusation to the authorities (police, prosecutor, or judge) against someone". Calunnia is defined by CP (Criminal Code) Article 368 (Google translation):

CP 368 - Calunnia

Anyone with denunciation, complaint, demand or request, even if anonymously or under a false name, directly to the court or other authority that has the obligation to report or the International Criminal Court, blames anybody of a crime that he knows innocent, that simulates borne him the traces [evidence] of a crime, shall be punished with imprisonment from two to six years (1).
The penalty is increased if es'incolpa [one incriminates] anybody of a crime through which the law prescribes a penalty of imprisonment for a maximum ten years, or another more serious penalty.
Imprisonment is from four to twelve years, if the act results in a prison sentence up to five years; is from six to twenty years, if the act results in a life sentence; and apply life imprisonment, if the act results in a condemnation to death (2).

(1) Paragraph amended by art. 10, paragraph 3, L. December 20, 2012, n. 237. The text previously in force was as follows: "Whoever, with the complaint, complaint, demand or request, even if anonymously or under a false name, directly to the court or other authority that has the obligation to report, blames anybody of a crime that he knows innocent, that simulates borne him the traces of a crime, shall be punished with imprisonment from two to six years. ".
(2) The death penalty for offenses under the Criminal Code was abolished by art. 1 of D.Lgs.Lgt. August 10, 1944, n. 224.
Click to expand...

Also of interest: false confession is a crime in Italy, punishable by imprisonment; it is called autocalunnia and is defined in CP 369. So if the police interrogate someone in a way that results in a false confession, and it doesn't result in conviction because the sum of the evidence doesn't support a guilty verdict, that person can be convicted and imprisoned for autocalunnia.
 
davefoc said:
Unless Chieffi said that his reasoning was based in any way on the conclusions of the Micheli pre trial hearing/fast track trial it seems like the criticism of that process with regard to the first AK/RS is not well founded. Although it was the hearing that also bound them over for trial and they seem not have been able to cross examine witnesses or present evidence. This seems like a questionable practice, in particular because according to what I've read in this thread Italy doesn't have a bail system.

I took a look at the Chieffi report (I found it after I realized that Chieffi is spelled with two f's). This seems like a pretty telling point on the above:


If I understand this paragraph correctly it sounds like Chieffi based part of his reasoning on the results of Guede's trial. That strikes me as something that should have been illegal without any discussion necessary. The use of evidence against an individual without their ability to cross examine the source of that evidence is a disgusting aspect of the Italian legal system if it was allowed.

....
Click to expand...

davefoc,

There are many good points in your post.

On the one I highlighted, the practice of using non-cross-examined statements against a defendant, without the permission of the defendant, is against the procedural law and the constitution (Article 111) of Italy. It is also against ECHR case-law, and the original case-law banning it was Luca v Italy.

That was one of the many violations of defendant's rights that characterized these trials.
 
With the horrible rape and brutal knifing of a foreign college student from England weighing heavily on the town of Perugia and the country of Italy, surely the local cops and the feds were under a lot of pressure to find a culprit and get an arrest, right?

After reading what Judge Claudia Matteini wrote,
I betcha there is no chance in hell that the Italian cops were not going to arrest + imprison Amanda Knox
before her Mommy arrived, no matter what Grinder writes...
 
RWVBWL said:
With the horrible rape and brutal knifing of a foreign college student from England weighing heavily on the town of Perugia and the country of Italy, surely the local cops and the feds were under a lot of pressure to find a culprit and get an arrest, right?

After reading what Judge Claudia Matteini wrote,
I betcha there is no chance in hell that the Italian cops were not going to arrest + imprison Amanda Knox
before her Mommy arrived, no matter what Grinder writes...
Click to expand...

Whoa buddy,

When did I say there was no chance? Well, if I said there was no chance they arrested her before her mother arrived by design I withdraw it. I'll point out that my first post or at least one of the first ten was about De Felice and the buckled until correct remark so pretty clearly I was suspicious of the cops. That was when I really took interest and knew something was rotten in Italy.

Now that would require them calling her in at some point so the fact that they didn't and the cops said they didn't and only Giobbi claims only he ordered it makes it less likely her arrival was major or maybe even minor factor.
 
Numbers said:
davefoc,

There are many good points in your post.

On the one I highlighted, the practice of using non-cross-examined statements against a defendant, without the permission of the defendant, is against the procedural law and the constitution (Article 111) of Italy. It is also against ECHR case-law, and the original case-law banning it was Luca v Italy.

That was one of the many violations of defendant's rights that characterized these trials.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

I have been reading some of the court documents over the last few days and I've been struck by the fact that the people that are writing them seem to be strangely naive for judges. They have low levels of introspection and they seem to be unaware that their writing demonstrates faulty logic that is transparently so to critical thinkers. But to draw conclusions like this I need to think about my own biases and how they might be clouding my judgment on this. So I am unsure about the truth of my observations on this or the value of them.

I was also struck by the fact that these people seem to believe that they were going to get away with it. How many other people are sitting in Italian jails because some whacked prosecutor knew how to manipulate a judicial system and the incompetent judges that are at the heart of it? Maybe not that many, maybe this was truly an anomalous event. It is hard to understand how it got so far along before it was stopped and from the outside it looks somewhat happenstance that it was stopped at all.

But, of course, none of this is the reason I made my post. Mostly I just wanted to give you a chance to bring up the ECHR again. :)

And then there is my little personal hot button about the multiple attacker non-sense. As a person that has wrestled individuals that are much larger and stronger than myself and visa versa I can make a good estimate of how a violent encounter between Kercher and Guede would have gone. Guede would have grabbed her, spun her around almost immediately and pushed her to the floor or the bed or up against a wall. From a position behind her Guede could have grabbed her hair and bashed her face into the ground, he could break her arms, he could strangle her, he could suffocate her, etc. Fights between individuals of greatly dissimilar strength are not what one might imagine if one's ideas on this are formed by watching movies.
 
davefoc said:
....

1. But, of course, none of this is the reason I made my post. Mostly I just wanted to give you a chance to bring up the ECHR again. :)

2. And then there is my little personal hot button about the multiple attacker non-sense. As a person that has wrestled individuals that are much larger and stronger than myself and visa versa I can make a good estimate of how a violent encounter between Kercher and Guede would have gone. Guede would have grabbed her, spun her around almost immediately and pushed her to the floor or the bed or up against a wall. From a position behind her Guede could have grabbed her hair and bashed her face into the ground, he could break her arms, he could strangle her, he could suffocate her, etc. Fights between individuals of greatly dissimilar strength are not what one might imagine if one's ideas on this are formed by watching movies.
Click to expand...

1. :)

2. Regarding this, I recall that someone posted that a chunk of Meredith's hair had been torn out and was found on the floor of her room. Does anyone have a confirmatory citation for this? If true, it would suggest one way the attacker - Guede - had attempted to control her.
 
Numbers said:
1. :)

2. Regarding this, I recall that someone posted that a chunk of Meredith's hair had been torn out and was found on the floor of her room. Does anyone have a confirmatory citation for this? If true, it would suggest one way the attacker - Guede - had attempted to control her.
Click to expand...

I got that part about Meredith's hair from Ron Hendry, Single Attacker Theory at the end of chapter 3. He even speculates that Meredith's scream came from her hair being pulled out as Rudy grabs her hair as she makes a last ditch attempt to escape.

Strands of Meredith's long hair will later be found in several locations on the floor with one large plug becoming caked in her blood and separating from her scalp at her final resting position. -Ron Hendry
 
Last edited:
davefoc said:
.
.
.
And then there is my little personal hot button about the multiple attacker non-sense. As a person that has wrestled individuals that are much larger and stronger than myself and visa versa I can make a good estimate of how a violent encounter between Kercher and Guede would have gone. Guede would have grabbed her, spun her around almost immediately and pushed her to the floor or the bed or up against a wall. From a position behind her Guede could have grabbed her hair and bashed her face into the ground, he could break her arms, he could strangle her, he could suffocate her, etc. Fights between individuals of greatly dissimilar strength are not what one might imagine if one's ideas on this are formed by watching movies.
Click to expand...


And when your one attacker scenario is reinforced by the evidence of only one attacker found in the bedroom where the attack/murder took place, a multiple attacker scenario shouldn't even be a consideration.
 
Motivation report

Andrea Vogt has tweeted today that Art 617 requires Cassation to issue the motivations in 30 days from the verdict!

Doh!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom