Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

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!

Going to the source as to what Raffaele might have meant when he implied that their behaviour was "suspicious"......

Raffaele said he was perhaps the only one in the Questura that could discern that Amanda's "behaviour" would attract attention of Italians. (As to the Brits, he perhaps did not have that kind of radar.)

I first blurted this out when Erin Burnett was interviewing CNN legal analyst and former homicide prosecutor, Paul Callan, just after the Nencini provisional re-conviction.

Burnett seemed sure that the key to this case was "Amanda's behaviour." IIRC even Callan gave a slight scoff to her suggestion.... Callan himself as soft-guilter.

The point being, what was the behaviour pointing to, if it is seen to be "suspicious"? I'm loathe to read through Massei again, but even is guilt verdict did not rely upon behaviour.

Of all the non sequitors of making a guilt case this is the non sequitorious.

 

[Bill Williams]

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

That's not exactly the nuance Raffaele puts on this point in his book. He could tell that people like Napoleoni were getting "hooked" and disctracted by the behaviour, but he never once argues that it was suspicious of murder.

 

[Grinder]

Going to the source as to what Raffaele might have meant when he implied that their behaviour was "suspicious"......

Raffaele said he was perhaps the only one in the Questura that could discern that Amanda's "behaviour" would attract attention of Italians. (As to the Brits, he perhaps did not have that kind of radar.)

I first blurted this out when Erin Burnett was interviewing CNN legal analyst and former homicide prosecutor, Paul Callan, just after the Nencini provisional re-conviction.

Burnett seemed sure that the key to this case was "Amanda's behaviour." IIRC even Callan gave a slight scoff to her suggestion.... Callan himself as soft-guilter.

The point being, what was the behaviour pointing to, if it is seen to be "suspicious"? I'm loathe to read through Massei again, but even is guilt verdict did not rely upon behaviour.

Of all the non sequitors of making a guilt case this is the non sequitorious.

Do you think it is impossible to act guilty? Do you think police should pay any attention to people's behavior that might be involved in a crime they are investigating? Would inconsistent accounts be of concern? Would acting silly in the station cause a raised eye?

I believe you are using petitio principii. You are convinced beyond a shadow of doubt that the kids had absolutely nothing to do with the murder therefore anybody using behavior to key on them must be completely wrong. Even the kids can't think anything they did was suspicious.

 

[Grinder]

That's not exactly the nuance Raffaele puts on this point in his book. He could tell that people like Napoleoni were getting "hooked" and disctracted by the behaviour, but he never once argues that it was suspicious of murder.

That phrase makes no sense. What is suspicious of murder?

 

[Ken Dine]

"Ok, seven years 5 months. Ever since Mignini asked John Kercher Snr. into his office, gave heartfelt condolences and then proceeded to bungle the investigation because Mignini's mind was filled with sex-games gone wrong, and because Mignini was trying to rescue his own career after the drubbing he took over the Narducci affair."

The phrase "sex game gone wrong" was repeated by hundreds of newspapers across the globe and is still used to summarize the prosecution position. It is still amazing that this idea was invented with no evidence whatsoever based on pure speculation. Later the evidence was literally molded and shaped to fit the theory and major pieces of evidence had to be suppressed or destroyed to make the theory fit the facts (sorry, facts fit the theory).

I forgot, is it three or four computer hard drives that were destroyed? I think these people honestly believed that they were just doing their job. 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.

Four laptops, one of Raffaele's laptops, Amanda's laptop, Meredith's laptop, and Filomena's laptop.

Masei also refused defense requests to have experts retrieve the lost data from the burned drives, which is often possible to do.

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've heard that John Kercher Sr had a working relationship with the BBC, and that John Kercher Jr still does, which may explain the BBC's skewed reporting on this case.

I've noticed that the COMMENTS by UK posters below many UK articles over the last year have recently changed to be more pro-innocent.

Despite the generally atrocious UK media reporting of this case over the years, it seems to me that there are quite a few pro-Knox posters in this forum from the UK too. Some people believe what they read, and others sift thru the B$ and read between the lines, I guess?

I'm amazed that the Kerchers didn't see thru Mignini's nonsense years ago. I know that the loss of a daughter would be a horrible shock, but if my daughter was lost to violence, I would certainly want the correct people punished.

 

[zotz]

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

Thanks, I haven't seen that one but I am sure that this documentary was done before the 2014 one. It focuses on the who is Amana Knox? theme. It barely even mentions Guede so it is hard to claim that this represents the defense viewpoint. They actually spend little time discussing the evidence at all. It was done before Amanda was released from prison so I don't think it is the one that you mean. The pro-innocence side is presented by her family, not by investigators, and there is a lot of time spent on Edda crying into the camera which is very sweet but it certainly doesn't do anything to counter the hard untruths of "Is Amanda Knox Guilty"

I can see the average Brit saying ...yes, well Edda may be a nice person but that doesn't have anything to do with Amanda. Overall it is soft news, like Entertainment Weekly. They even interview Peter Quenelle and waste time discussing Barbie's feud with Chris Mellas. So if this is the best you can do, Grinder, my original criticism about BBC stands.

 

[moije2]

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.

You said:

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 said:

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.​

You have commented several times about how the British girls changed their testimony to fit the perceived desired flavor let's call it, after realizing that AK and RS were prime suspects. You have also made this statement about AK and RS commenting that their behaviour could be seen as suspicious. You have said it in support of your contention that in the eyes of the ILE their behaviour was in fact reasonably viewed as suspicious.

My question and comments still holds. I think the comments of AK and RS in this regard should be given the same treatment. I.e., comments viewed after the fact and made to fit what the world around them was saying. I certainly wouldn't use their comments to bolster your argument.

In this way, the British girls do indeed draw comparison.

I certainly understand your view about the ILE and their perception. I just think the comments of AK and RS are being employed by you as sort of a super witness to the quality of their conduct. Not good logic. You and others have frequently been critical of their behaviour, and to use them to justify this is contradictory.

 

[Strozzi]

I have seen nothing in the CPP that explains how one is "officially declared as a suspect". There is a CPP Article 61 that states a suspect has the same rights as an accused person. That would mean the right to a lawyer. The lawyer must be provided by police or prosecutor from a pool of registered lawyers (not intended as a joke) if the accused or suspect does not have one; CPP Article 96 and 97. The pool is organized by the Bar Association.

ETA: Is there documentation - a citation - showing that Amanda was told that she was entitled to a lawyer? Something that she had signed? I did see on some Mignini-originated forms that there was a lawyer named for her, but did she meet the lawyer when in custody?
There's a relevant ECHR case from Turkey. A defendant in custody asked to see a lawyer. A lawyer was brought into the room within sight of the defendant, but they were not allowed to speak. The ECHR judged this a violation of Convention Article 6.3c and thus Article 6.1. (This is not intended as a joke.)

Was Amanda informed in English that she was entitled to a lawyer, and if there is documentation - a citation that she signed, was it in English? Amanda clearly was unable to understand the words of a statement or declaration of a legal nature unless it was provided to her in English. And I suggest that since she is untrained in or unfamiliar with law and legal procedure, did she have an English-speaking lawyer who could explain the legal meaning of any such statement or declaration.

So we have two issues:

1. Was anything provided to her orally or in written form translated into English so she could understand the words?
2. Was she provided with an attorney to explain to her the legal meaning of anything that was provided to her by Mignini or other Italian authorities?

 

[Strozzi]

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?

According to Giobbi, it was observation of their psychological and behavioral reactions during the interrogations. Too bad the PLE did not videotape these condemnatory psychological and behavioral responses. And to think, based on Giobbi's statements, that it included observation of their stance, blue eyes, hip swivel, purchase of clean underwear, and preference for pizza.

 

[Grinder]

I certainly understand your view about the ILE and their perception. I just think the comments of AK and RS are being employed by you as sort of a super witness to the quality of their conduct. Not good logic. You and others have frequently been critical of their behaviour, and to use them to justify this is contradictory.

The british girls changed up directly after the kids were arrested and in the next couple of months.

The kids admitting they behaved in a way to engender suspicion came years later.

We will disagree over whether the girls coming out against AK is the same sort of thing as the kids copping to theirown behavior. Why are their statements off limits to corroborate their behavior was questionable?

 

[Grinder]

Thanks, I haven't seen that one but I am sure that this documentary was done before the 2014 one. It focuses on the who is Amana Knox? theme. It barely even mentions Guede so it is hard to claim that this represents the defense viewpoint. They actually spend little time discussing the evidence at all. It was done before Amanda was released from prison so I don't think it is the one that you mean. The pro-innocence side is presented by her family, not by investigators, and there is a lot of time spent on Edda crying into the camera which is very sweet but it certainly doesn't do anything to counter the hard untruths of "Is Amanda Knox Guilty"

I can see the average Brit saying ...yes, well Edda may be a nice person but that doesn't have anything to do with Amanda. Overall it is soft news, like Entertainment Weekly. They even interview Peter Quenelle and waste time discussing Barbie's feud with Chris Mellas. So if this is the best you can do, Grinder, my original criticism about BBC stands.

Your welcome and I'm sorry it's the wrong one. The right one has the climber going up the wall.

Okay this is it (I think) - http://www.channel5.com/shows/amanda-knox-the-untold-story

but I can't watch it here.

ETA - here's a story on the documentary http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...CSI-style-probe-try-answer-key-questions.html

 

[Bill Williams]

That's not exactly the nuance Raffaele puts on this point in his book. He could tell that people like Napoleoni were getting "hooked" and disctracted by the behaviour, but he never once argues that it was suspicious of murder.

That phrase makes no sense. What is suspicious of murder?

Makes sense to me. It means that although Raffaele writes in his book that Amanda's "behaviour" was attracting attention to herself, unbeknownst to herself, he nowhere says it pointed to murder. Particularly in the Questura in the first days, he writes that Amanda's behaviour was attracting the attention of detectives, particularly the female detectives.

But he never once writes that the suspicions engendered could reasonably be interpreted by him as he though that these were signs she'd committed a murder. Indeed, the day before his own arrest, he writes that a female police officer gave him a card and said he needed a lawyer. He had no idea why he would need a lawyer so discarded the card.

True, that is not directly addressing if he thought Amanda needed a lawyer - even while he was thinking that her "behaviour" was attracting unwelcome attention from the cops - it's just that there is no justification whatsoever to claim that Raffaele, by his own direct-report, admitted that their behaviour was suspicious, to the point of making others believe they'd committed a murder.

 

[Bill Williams]

Do you think it is impossible to act guilty?

No, it is not impossible.

Do you think police should pay any attention to people's behavior that might be involved in a crime they are investigating?

Yes.

Would inconsistent accounts be of concern?

Yes.

Would acting silly in the station cause a raised eye?

Yes, but this is fairly broad.

I believe you are using petitio principii. You are convinced beyond a shadow of doubt that the kids had absolutely nothing to do with the murder therefore anybody using behavior behaviour to key on them must be completely wrong. Even the kids can't think anything they did was suspicious.

You are entitled to your beliefs.

 

[moije2]

The british girls changed up directly after the kids were arrested and in the next couple of months.

The kids admitting they behaved in a way to engender suspicion came years later.

We will disagree over whether the girls coming out against AK is the same sort of thing as the kids copping to theirown behavior. Why are their statements off limits to corroborate their behavior was questionable?

Years later is not a determinitive factor in this. IMO. Never said off limits. My point is that you were using their "admissions" re behaviour as a sort of capping final blow in that discussion. We may disagree about the similar logic of Re British girls, but the comments of AK and RS in this don't establish "suspicious" behaviour. They were under the magnifying glass of the trial and those looking and commenting about them. Years later or not. On that note, how long was it before the British girls testified? It wasn't the next week or even the next month I believe.

 

[Numbers]

Makes sense to me. It means that although Raffaele writes in his book that Amanda's "behaviour" was attracting attention to herself, unbeknownst to herself, he nowhere says it pointed to murder. Particularly in the Questura in the first days, he writes that Amanda's behaviour was attracting the attention of detectives, particularly the female detectives.

But he never once writes that the suspicions engendered could reasonably be interpreted by him as he though that these were signs she'd committed a murder. Indeed, the day before his own arrest, he writes that a female police officer gave him a card and said he needed a lawyer. He had no idea why he would need a lawyer so discarded the card.

True, that is not directly addressing if he thought Amanda needed a lawyer - even while he was thinking that her "behaviour" was attracting unwelcome attention from the cops - it's just that there is no justification whatsoever to claim that Raffaele, by his own direct-report, admitted that their behaviour was suspicious, to the point of making others believe they'd committed a murder.

In Giobbi's testimony, the important behaviors of Amanda and Raffaele that he stated raised his suspicions included:

1. He perceived that Amanda wiggled her hips and said "voila" while she raised her arms after she had put on her protective booties before entering the downstairs flat.

2. Raffaele at one point (on Nov. 2, 3, or 4) showed up at the police station apparently to pick up Amanda to take her home (if I understand the Google translation properly). He was perceived by Giobbi (or officers relaying information to Giobbi) as showing "attitude" of some kind.

ETA: In my opinion, the "suspicious behaviors" are issues of cultural difference, an intolerance for the relative difference in maturity levels of middle-aged police and college-age students, or simply a smoke-screen to cover-up the identification of "convenient suspects". Giobbi in fact places great emphasis in the beginning of his testimony on the identification of those close to Meredith who had "weak" (easily defeated) alibis. I suggest this observation of easily defeated alibis in those who were "at hand" for the police was the overwhelming "suspicious behavior". By "at hand" I mean physically available to the police - not requiring a search for an unknown supsected person based on fingerprints, DNA, or other forensic evidence. Such "at hand" persons are "convenient suspects" if their alibis can be readily, if not honestly, defeated - for example, by arresting a sole alibi witness as a co-conspirator. That was the case here.

 

[Bill Williams]

In Giobbi's testimony, the important behaviors of Amanda and Raffaele that he stated raised his suspicions included:

1. He perceived that Amanda wiggled her hips and said "voila" while she raised her arms after she had put on her protective booties before entering the downstairs flat.

2. Raffaele at one point (on Nov. 2, 3, or 4) showed up at the police station apparently to pick up Amanda to take her home (if I understand the Google translation properly). He was perceived by Giobbi (or officers relaying information to Giobbi) as showing "attitude" of some kind.

.... which is why I wish to ask, if this raised suspicions, were they suspicions that somehow the two had participated in a murder?

Nowhere do I find Amanda or Raffaele admiting to that. They admit that (flying blind, and with 20/20 hindsight) they probably did do things which did not improve their situation as it developed, but nowhere can I find them saying, "The police were justified in suspecting us of the murder because of our behaviour."

 

[moije2]

.... which is why I wish to ask, if this raised suspicions, were they suspicions that somehow the two had participated in a murder?

Nowhere do I find Amanda or Raffaele admiting to that. They admit that (flying blind, and with 20/20 hindsight) they probably did do things which did not improve their situation as it developed, but nowhere can I find them saying, "The police were justified in suspecting us of the murder because of our behaviour."

Yes. And I would like to see the case where someone is under the magnifying glass as accused in a murder case - and importantly in retrospect analysis - and they don't commit some "error" in behavior that would be interpreted as "suspicious". Whatever that means.

It seems to me that this discussion re suspicious behavior has such a low threshold as to be near meaningless. Framed this way you have to agree that they committed suspisious behaviors. Of something! Aren't we all suspicious?

 

[Numbers]

.... which is why I wish to ask, if this raised suspicions, were they suspicions that somehow the two had participated in a murder?

Nowhere do I find Amanda or Raffaele admiting to that. They admit that (flying blind, and with 20/20 hindsight) they probably did do things which did not improve their situation as it developed, but nowhere can I find them saying, "The police were justified in suspecting us of the murder because of our behaviour."

Yes. And I would like to see the case where someone is under the magnifying glass as accused in a murder case - and importantly in retrospect analysis - and they don't commit some "error" in behavior that would be interpreted as "suspicious". Whatever that means.

It seems to me that this discussion re suspicious behavior has such a low threshold as to be near meaningless. Framed this way you have to agree that they committed suspisious behaviors. Of something! Aren't we all suspicious?

It seems to me that most of the suspicion concerns PDA - public display of affection. And I suspect that there is a jealousy and resentment of the young, coupled with suspect-centric thinking, in this.

Raffaele's comfort-kiss of Amanda after Meredith's body is discovered is considered "suspicious" by some, and apparently was endlessly replayed in the media - since it was captured on video. No one paid attention to the butt-fondling by Laura (or was it Filomena) of her boyfriend at the same time, outside the cottage, captured on another image.

 

[davefoc]

Yes. And I would like to see the case where someone is under the magnifying glass as accused in a murder case - and importantly in retrospect analysis - and they don't commit some "error" in behavior that would be interpreted as "suspicious". Whatever that means.

It seems to me that this discussion re suspicious behavior has such a low threshold as to be near meaningless. Framed this way you have to agree that they committed suspisious behaviors. Of something! Aren't we all suspicious?

I tend to agree. A feature of our confirmation bias mechanism is that we interpret minor details as supporting our conclusions.

 

[LondonJohn]

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

I'll repeat the opinion that I've given before on this matter:

I believe it's highly possible that the police (in conjunction with the PM) wanted the following choreography to take place on the night of 5th/6th November. First off, I believe the police/PM thought they "knew" by this point (i.e. the evening of the 5th) that Knox was directly involved in the murder in some way, and that Sollecito was at the very least covering for her by lying to police about Knox having been in his apartment all evening/night. So they wanted to bring Sollecito in first, alone. They would then work on Sollecito until he dropped his protection of Knox, admitted to the police that he had been lying to protect her, and told the police what they "already knew to be correct" - that Knox had left his apartment that night.

Once they'd broken Sollecito in this way, the police would obviously have just cause to arrest Knox. I believe the plan was to send the primed arrest squad out to get Knox, with maximum fanfare and probably a tip-off to the media. The police would have been surveilling Knox, so they'd know where to go to get her. They knew they'd get lots of kudos for the drama of the arrest. Once they'd got Knox in, they'd confront her with Sollecito's abandonment of her, and get her in turn to "buckle" and tell them "what they already knew to be correct".

But Knox thwarted their choreography by coming to the police HQ with Sollecito. I think that the police anger/frustration was everything to do with the sentiment of "Not yet! We don't want her here yet! We want to be able to go out into town and get her with maximum fanfare and publicity".

And I think that this explanation fits well with the verious statements made by police, which on the face of it might have seemed contradictory. I think Giobbi was correct in saying that Knox was definitely going to be brought into the police HQ that night. What he omits to say, however, is that the plan was to bring Knox in only after Sollecito had been "broken".