Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

It did for someone! Not for you, obviously. If I readmy Grinders right, you'd have never sent them to trial in 2009.

Which leads me to ask - if it had been up to you, when would you have set them free, if arrested them at all?

Don't have the time to go find a old quote of myself, but I'd have let them out within a week or two, most likely when Patrick was released.

Since they weren't charged for a year, charges couldn't be dropped but I would have disallowed the DNA on the knife, I would have seen the issues with the footprints and shoe prints and realized that the witnesses were worthless. I imagine I would have just released them from home detention after a month but that isn't declaring them innocent which I imagine they never would have done unless Rudi definitively said he was alone or some other people.

 

[Grinder]

But when they say openly, on camera, that evidence matters less that their professional intuition it is time to question the entire system that supports these people.

Apparently, at least some of the Kerchers and a large portion of the public (certainly in Europe) still believe that Meredith died at the hands of Knox and Sollecito in a "sex game gone wrong". There have been no TV documentaries to counter Is Amanda Knox Guilty? shown in the UK last year. The BBC has a responsibility to correct this lapse of judgement.

I don't recall Giobbi or anyone on this case saying intuition matters more than evidence.

There was the Channel 4 show that showed the climber easily get up to the window sill.

 

[zotz]

I don't recall Giobbi or anyone on this case saying intuition matters more than evidence.

There was the Channel 4 show that showed the climber easily get up to the window sill.

So you are saying that the coverage on Channel 4 has been balanced?

This is what Giobbi said (if the translation is accurate)
"We were able to establish guilt by carefully observing the subject's psychological and behavioral reactions during the interrogations. We didn't need to rely on other kinds of investigations as this method enabled us to get to the guilty parties in very quick time."

So it isn't intuition. What is it then, science? professional judgement?
What is it?

 

[Kauffer]

I don't recall Giobbi or anyone on this case saying intuition matters more than evidence.

There was the Channel 4 show that showed the climber easily get up to the window sill.

Well, this is what Giobbi said:

"This has been an investigation of a truly psychological nature. We were able to establish guilt by carefully observing the suspects psychological and behavioural reactions during the interrogations. We didn't need to rely on other kinds of investigation as this method enabled us to get to the guilty parties in very quick time."

http://youtu.be/sWkZPWRS3N0

Sounds like an argument from intuition to me. Not even their actions are important; merely their reactions and no physical evidence, timeline or narrative.

 

[Grinder]

So you are saying that the coverage on Channel 4 has been balanced?

This is what Giobbi said (if the translation is accurate)
"We were able to establish guilt by carefully observing the subject's psychological and behavioral reactions during the interrogations. We didn't need to rely on other kinds of investigations as this method enabled us to get to the guilty parties in very quick time."

So it isn't intuition. What is it then, science? professional judgement?
What is it?

There was a program on 4 or was it 5 that was balanced and pointed out many errors in the prosecution. The climb video is here

Apparently, at least some of the Kerchers and a large portion of the public (certainly in Europe) still believe that Meredith died at the hands of Knox and Sollecito in a "sex game gone wrong". There have been no TV documentaries to counter Is Amanda Knox Guilty? shown in the UK last year. The BBC has a responsibility to correct this lapse of judgement.​

So yes there was a documentary that did counter the one you mentioned.



I don't take the quote to mean that their intuition was more important than evidence but that they were able to "get to the guilty parties" that way. I would think that many investigations identify the guilty parties before evidence comes back from the lab.

Both of the kids feel their behavior either was suspicious or could be seen that way.

 

[Numbers]

So you are saying that the coverage on Channel 4 has been balanced?

This is what Giobbi said (if the translation is accurate)
"We were able to establish guilt by carefully observing the subject's psychological and behavioral reactions during the interrogations. We didn't need to rely on other kinds of investigations as this method enabled us to get to the guilty parties in very quick time."

So it isn't intuition. What is it then, science? professional judgement?
What is it?

IMO, it's the targeting of the most convenient suspects.

One may choose to consider Giobbi accurately describing what he believed his method was, but if one looks at his testimony, he starts out by saying that the persons closest to Meredith were targeted. And, perhaps at about the same time, he concluded, perhaps with input from others, that the break-in was staged, because a real burglar would have entered through the balcony window.

Of course, the police never conducted a credible forensic investigation to establish any facts about the break-in in Filomena's bedroom.

 

[Grinder]

Well, this is what Giobbi said:

"This has been an investigation of a truly psychological nature. We were able to establish guilt by carefully observing the suspects psychological and behavioural reactions during the interrogations. We didn't need to rely on other kinds of investigation as this method enabled us to get to the guilty parties in very quick time."

http://youtu.be/sWkZPWRS3N0

Sounds like an argument from intuition to me. Not even their actions are important; merely their reactions and no physical evidence, timeline or narrative.

As I said above I don't read that to mean the behavioral is more important than "hard" evidence but rather available first. Below is Zotz's statement:

But when they say openly, on camera, that evidence matters less that their professional intuition it is time to question the entire system that supports these people.

and he doesn't say that. What he said was he didn't need evidence to identify the guilty party.

Remember this is the guy that claimed with mathematical certainty he had called in both of the kids but he didn't and the PLE disagreed with him.

 

[Grinder]

IMO, it's the targeting of the most convenient suspects.

Why would they have been the most convenient? They had resources to fight. Why not get one of the usual suspects from the low-life criminals?

I wish we had Raf's other statements as the one we do have makes him look flaky and that's a kind description.

 

[Numbers]

Why would they have been the most convenient? They had resources to fight. Why not get one of the usual suspects from the low-life criminals?

I wish we had Raf's other statements as the one we do have makes him look flaky and that's a kind description.

It's the relative weakness of their alibis. That is, Amanda and Raffaele alibi each other for the relevant time. Arrest both, and there is no way, to certain police mentalities, that they can defend themselves. In terms of forensics, Amanda lived in the flat, as did Meredith, Amanda's DNA would be there, thus a conviction. Exculpatory evidence could be "appropriately" suppressed or destroyed.

The resources of the Italian state were available to the police and prosecutor, and they were much larger than those of Amanda and Raffaele. Mignini and Comodi spent about EUR 160,000 or 180,000 on a cartoon illustrating their theory of the crime for the first trial.

 

[Kauffer]

As I said above I don't read that to mean the behavioral is more important than "hard" evidence but rather available first. Below is Zotz's statement:

But when they say openly, on camera, that evidence matters less that their professional intuition it is time to question the entire system that supports these people.

and he doesn't say that. What he said was he didn't need evidence to identify the guilty party.

Remember this is the guy that claimed with mathematical certainty he had called in both of the kids but he didn't and the PLE disagreed with him.

He said : "We didn't need to rely on other kinds of investigation...." So, what we can "read that to mean" is that he didn't go looking for any evidence because he didn't feel a need to. His only investigation was into behaviour. But behaviour is unreliable as evidence. It might make someone seem suspicious, rightly or wrongly, perhaps provide a "hunch", but what you do then is test it by finding some hard evidence. Giobbi is saying he didn't need any evidence.

I like hunches - they can take people in interesting directions like looking for evidence in places you might not ordinarily think to look - a lateral approach. That's fine and creative and might lead to results, but it doesn't in and of itself provide the result.

Why should we agree with your last sentence? What evidence is there that Giobbi did not order both of them to be "taken"? Why couldn't the police have brought Raffaele in first with a plan to bring Amanda in later? Was Giobbi lying? Why would he? It hurts him and the case to say such a thing.

 

[zotz]

As I said above I don't read that to mean the behavioral is more important than "hard" evidence but rather available first. Below is Zotz's statement:

But when they say openly, on camera, that evidence matters less that their professional intuition it is time to question the entire system that supports these people.

and he doesn't say that. What he said was he didn't need evidence to identify the guilty party.
Remember this is the guy that claimed with mathematical certainty he had called in both of the kids but he didn't and the PLE disagreed with him.

I don't agree with this. He says that he doesn't need "other kinds of investigations". Meaning that his psychological intuition is better that objective facts. If he said that he used behavioral reactions to identify suspects then that would be reasonable but he declares them to be guilty, without verification. One would be justified to ask if he even agrees with legal system in Italy that requires a fair trial.

And I don't agree with you about "Is Amanda Knox Guilty". BBC should allow the defense side to rebut all the nonsense in that show. It would take an hour (or more) to counter all the lies in that report.

 

[Grinder]

He said : "We didn't need to rely on other kinds of investigation...." So, what we can "read that to mean" is that he didn't go looking for any evidence because he didn't feel a need to. His only investigation was into behaviour. But behaviour is unreliable as evidence. It might make someone seem suspicious, rightly or wrongly, perhaps provide a "hunch", but what you do then is test it by finding some hard evidence. Giobbi is saying he didn't need any evidence.

They did two days of forensic investigation at the cottage. They interviewed dozens of people that first day and the next. They had detectives out interviewing possible witnesses. They certainty didn't just go on a hunches.

He is not saying he didn't need any evidence ever. He said their behavior observations (profiling) led them to think the kids were guilty.

He is obviously a blowhard and tries to take credit.

I like hunches - they can take people in interesting directions like looking for evidence in places you might not ordinarily think to look - a lateral approach. That's fine and creative and might lead to results, but it doesn't in and of itself provide the result.

He doesn't say that all they needed to convict was his hunch. He wouldn't call it a hunch but rather psychological analysis. Doesn't Douglas come up with profiles?

Why should we agree with your last sentence? What evidence is there that Giobbi did not order both of them to be "taken"? Why couldn't the police have brought Raffaele in first with a plan to bring Amanda in later? Was Giobbi lying? Why would he? It hurts him and the case to say such a thing.

Amanda says she wasn't asked to come in. He lied because he wanted to take credit for bringing her in. I gave the info from a pro kids site that said the other PLE cops denied she was called in.

 

[moije2]

There was a program on 4 or was it 5 that was balanced and pointed out many errors in the prosecution. The climb video is here

Apparently, at least some of the Kerchers and a large portion of the public (certainly in Europe) still believe that Meredith died at the hands of Knox and Sollecito in a "sex game gone wrong". There have been no TV documentaries to counter Is Amanda Knox Guilty? shown in the UK last year. The BBC has a responsibility to correct this lapse of judgement.​

So yes there was a documentary that did counter the one you mentioned.



I don't take the quote to mean that their intuition was more important than evidence but that they were able to "get to the guilty parties" that way. I would think that many investigations identify the guilty parties before evidence comes back from the lab.

Both of the kids feel their behavior either was suspicious or could be seen that way. .

Isn't this identical to the English girls in conforming their comments to things that happened around them and that they became aware of later? Anyway, what difference does it make what Amanda or Rafael a think with regard to what other people think about their actions/comments? I don't see how that bolsters your argument.


ETA What else could they possibly say? Oh yes, there was nothing suspicious about us. It's just the Masons dictated that we be arrested? And that is why we spent 4 years in jail. They would have to make some sense of their reality after all. If anybody's interpretation of their actions to be subject to influence I would think there's would be inherently influenceable. And malleable to fit what they have been through.

 

[Grinder]

I don't agree with this. He says that he doesn't need "other kinds of investigations". Meaning that his psychological intuition is better that objective facts. If he said that he used behavioral reactions to identify suspects then that would be reasonable but he declares them to be guilty, without verification. One would be justified to ask if he even agrees with legal system in Italy that requires a fair trial.

And I don't agree with you about "Is Amanda Knox Guilty". BBC should allow the defense side to rebut all the nonsense in that show. It would take an hour (or more) to counter all the lies in that report.

He basically is saying his psychological methods allow him to identify the guilty similar to our FBI profilers. He shouldn't declare them guilty regardless before the final trial. He shouldn't have put her picture on his wall of shame.

Have you seen the other documentary? You made two statements. In one you said that NO documentary counter the one you feature and then you say the BBC needs to do something.

I think this is the one but not sure - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFEYao1qy7c

 

[Grinder]

Isn't this identical to the English girls in conforming their comments to things that happened around them and that they became aware of later? Anyway, what difference does it make what Amanda or Rafael a think with regard to what other people think about their actions/comments? I don't see how that bolsters your argument.

They understand that their behavior made them look suspicious. Has nothing to do with the british girls. The point is that there were reasons why they were looked at as possible perps.

 

[Numbers]

They did two days of forensic investigation at the cottage. They interviewed dozens of people that first day and the next. They had detectives out interviewing possible witnesses. They certainty didn't just go on a hunches.

He is not saying he didn't need any evidence ever. He said their behavior observations (profiling) led them to think the kids were guilty.

He is obviously a blowhard and tries to take credit.



He doesn't say that all they needed to convict was his hunch. He wouldn't call it a hunch but rather psychological analysis. Doesn't Douglas come up with profiles?



Amanda says she wasn't asked to come in. He lied because he wanted to take credit for bringing her in. I gave the info from a pro kids site that said the other PLE cops denied she was called in.

There is a confusion of statements here. The other cops didn't bring Amanda in because she accompanied Raffaele. That does not mean that Giobbi had not instructed the police to assure both of them were in the station at the appropriate times for his planned interrogations.

IIUC, Giobbi was one of the two highest-ranking police officers in Perugia - the other was the local chief of police - and was the out-of-town specialist brought in to help the locals.

And essentially the police conducted their press conference and gave themselves a pat on the back for solving the case so quickly, when they had arrested three innocents. The Perugian police and their SCO helpers from Rome were indeed a group of blowhards.

 

[Grinder]

There is a confusion of statements here. The other cops didn't bring Amanda in because she accompanied Raffaele. That does not mean that Giobbi had not instructed the police to assure both of them were in the station at the appropriate times for his planned interrogations.

IIUC, Giobbi was one of the two highest-ranking police officers in Perugia - the other was the local chief of police - and was the out-of-town specialist brought in to help the locals.

And essentially the police conducted their press conference and gave themselves a pat on the back for solving the case so quickly, when they had arrested three innocents. The Perugian police and their SCO helpers from Rome were indeed a group of blowhards.

Giobbi was from Rome. Director Servizio Centrale Operativo (SCO) / Lead investigator from Rome.

It is clear to me that Amanda was not asked to come in and that Giobbi is fabricating his "with mathematical" certainty remark. The statements of the PPD tell me he didn't order it and with mathematical certainty I say she went voluntarily without being asked.

ETA - 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.

http://knoxarchives.blogspot.com/2010/01/co-prosecutor-manuela-comodi-confirms.html

Combined with Amanda's book I'm sure she wasn't called in

Anybody know whose site this is? Totally pro innocence

 

[Bill Williams]

There was a program on 4 or was it 5 that was balanced and pointed out many errors in the prosecution. The climb video is here

Apparently, at least some of the Kerchers and a large portion of the public (certainly in Europe) still believe that Meredith died at the hands of Knox and Sollecito in a "sex game gone wrong". There have been no TV documentaries to counter Is Amanda Knox Guilty? shown in the UK last year. The BBC has a responsibility to correct this lapse of judgement.​

So yes there was a documentary that did counter the one you mentioned.



I don't take the quote to mean that their intuition was more important than evidence but that they were able to "get to the guilty parties" that way. I would think that many investigations identify the guilty parties before evidence comes back from the lab.

Both of the kids feel their behavior either was suspicious or could be seen that way.

I've never understood this statement, even coming from Raffaele or Amanda.

Suspicious of what?

 

[Grinder]

I've never understood this statement, even coming from Raffaele or Amanda.

Suspicious of what?

Could you clarify your question?

ETA - here's one snip:

Raffaele Sollecito, the man Italian prosecutors say helped Amanda Knox murder her roommate in 2007, admitted this week that he does have some lingering questions about Knox's behavior around the time of the crime.

In an interview that aired on Italian television Monday, Sollecito said that he doesn’t understand why his ex-girlfriend stayed in her flat in Perugia, Italy, to take a shower after she realized the residence had been broken into and noticed blood drops on the bathroom floor.

"Certainly I asked her questions," Sollecito said in the interview, which aired in part on the "Today" show Monday. "Why did you take a shower? Why did she spend so much time there? . . . I don't have answers."


Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/aman...sollecito/2014/02/25/id/554566/#ixzz3f4TkjMr9
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!

 

[Grinder]

Amanda Knox's behaviour was 'odd', admits Raffaele Sollecito
Amanda Knox's "odd" behaviour in the aftermath of the brutal murder of Meredith Kercher, including doing cartwheels, raised the suspicions of Italian police, her former boyfriend writes in a new book about the killing.

n his first account of a crime that made headlines around the world, Raffaele Sollecito, who met Miss Knox just a week before the murder, said he could understand why detectives viewed her eccentric behaviour as suspicious.
But he maintains in Honour Bound, which is due to be published next week, that the couple was innocent of the murder of Kercher, 21, a Leeds University student who, like Miss Knox, was studying for a year in Perugia.
Miss Knox's exuberant behaviour caught the eye of police and received massive media attention in the days after Kercher's half-naked body was found in the whitewashed villa that she shared with the American, just outside Perugia's stone walls.
She performed cartwheels while waiting to be questioned in a police station, sat on Mr Sollecito's lap in front of detectives and kissed and caressed him outside the scene of the murder.
The two were also seen shopping for sexy underwear in a lingerie shop in Perugia town centre. In the book, Mr Sollecito conceded that police found their conduct "odd".

And I don't always put in links because it is so easy to find by just taking a line in quotes and doin' a search