Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

Maybe that would have been better. Maybe if Giobbi enjoys that musical, he might have turned around and pinned the murder on somebody else! Probably depends on how well Amanda sang it, or if she spun around in a way that reminded him of Maria being a nun in the movie.

Giobbi is a hardnosed cop. Quit tryin' to charm this character as he'll have you in jail as soon as look at you, buddy.

 

[Numbers]

No it doesn't and I didn't bring it up. ....

Giobbi also says the kids were in a pizzeria when they were at a friends house. The other cops were angry with her for being there. Giobbi puffed himself up with "the order" and his profiling skills.

They called in Raf and Amanda went along. There is nothing other than Giobbi's puff that says they had other plans. For all those that maintain the cops were framing them from day one to protect their informant or other IMO crazy ideas including choosing them because they were easy targets, they should look at the busy schedule of interviews they conducted from the very first day.

....

The point in all this analysis of Giobbi's statements in his testimony, and comparison to the Perugian police, is not whether or not it was puff.

Giobbi's statements are those of a senior Italian police officer in a responsible position. His rank at the time was the same as that of the Chief of Police in Perugia, and since Giobbi was from the SCO, his "expertise" was important to the case. His statements are part of his testimony in the Italian court records. So are the statements of the Perugian police.

The real significance of such statements are how they will be viewed, not by us on an internet forum, but by the judges of an ECHR panel when Amanda Knox's case against Italy is judged.

I suggest that the ECHR judges will not dismiss the testimony of Giobbi or any of the other officials. They will be looking at that testimony in considering if there is any evidence in that testimony that Ms. Knox's Convention rights were not respected by the respondent state, the Republic of Italy. Each police officer, police employee, prosecutor, and judge is an agent of the Republic of Italy and Italy will be held responsible in the ECHR for any abuse of Convention rights carried out by any one of them. (The ECHR does not judge individuals, only the member states of the Council of Europe.)

Giobbi's claim in the testimony is that the interrogation of Nov. 5/6 was that it was planned and that he planned it. Puffery? He was the equivalent of a police chief in rank. The testimony of the Perugian police officers? If they were the foot soldiers, Giobbi was, let us say, a general, while Mignini was the commander-in-chief of the investigation. So Giobbi's testimony that the interrogation was planned may well be considered highly significant. But even if it were not planned, the violations of procedural rights - and there were violations against Raffaele Sollecito as well as against Amanda Knox - have never been disputed in any credible way.

 

[Vixen]

Wow! What a revolting post!

It was a revolting crime. Or is that irrelevant?

 

[Kauffer]

I knew someone in MI6 so I just took his word for it. Clearly, there is more to this than I assumed. Thx for the clarification. I note your link states ppl commonly describe SIS as MI6, so it is not a factual error given language is based on consensus and you yourself knew what was meant.

Perhaps you should now consider the possibility that you don't actually know someone in MI6 after all! Or, M16, as you thought.

 

[Kauffer]

It was a revolting crime. Or is that irrelevant?

An absurd allegation that Amanda Knox's behaviour was indicative of sociopathy is not at all relevant to the revolting crime of Meredith Kercher's murder.

 

[Numbers]

What constitutes "suspicious behavior"Grinder? Was it the kiss that Raffaele and Amanda shared in the car park? Or the putting on the booties and yelling "tada"? Or was it having pizza or buying underwear? Amanda seems like a unique character but not a murderous psycho.

Seriously Grinder, Amanda and Raffaele stayed and answered all the police's questions. They didn't go to Gubbio or Germany I keep hearing that their behavior was suspicious. Personally I just think it was a little different.

Like the Japanese maxim, the nail that stands out must be hammered down.

You do this constantly. You come to a conclusion about this case and then you make it some indisputable truth. At one time, it was that Rudy had a date with Meredith. Then it was that Rudy wasn't really a burglar, now It's Giobbi making up stories to promote his own self importance.

I don't know for sure that you are wrong about any of this, but I also don't think we can say that you are right either .

acbytesla,

I very much agree with your post. And most of the alleged "suspicious" behavior appears to be merely the PDA of two young college students, who no doubt did not realize that their mutual affection displayed openly would generate jealousy and hatred from misogynists and corrupt police and prosecutors.

 

[Kauffer]

An ECHR case relevant to the AK-RS case is KOVALCHUK v. UKRAINE 21958/05 04/11/2010

The relevance applies most directly to Amanda Knox's application to the ECHR claiming a violation of her Convention rights by Italy in that State convicting her of calunnia against Patrick Lumumba. In Kovalchuk v Ukraine, the ECHR judged there was a violation of Convention Article 3 (inhuman or degrading treatment) in both branches, substantive and procedural.

The most relevant part of the ECHR judgment is this statement from paragraph 60:

".... the apparent lack of procedural guarantees surrounding the applicant's interrogation, as he was questioned as a witness rather than as a suspect and in the absence of a lawyer. This, in conjunction with other irregularities surrounding the applicant's detention in custody, in particular, the two conflicting records of his arrest on 7 September 2002 and ambiguous evidence concerning the actual time of his detention in custody (see paragraphs 9, 10, 44 and 45 above), gives rise to a strong suspicion that regardless of whether the police resorted to physical violence, they used the applicant's arrest as a pretext to break his resistance in order to obtain self-incriminating statements."

More details are provided on the IIP Forum in the ECHR: Convention violations and Case-Law thread, and of course on HUDOC, the ECHR case data-base.

This is interesting. I think the ECHR will nail the Italians in this case over the lawyerless coercion of incriminating statements and their attempt to manipulate the law surrounding their use followed by their prosecution of her for making them in them in the first place.

 

[acbytesla]

The police need to be able to justify bringing charges. That includes reconstructing what they believe happened and the evidence for it.

Hindsight is a fine thing.

Police are confronted with a crime scene. They set about solving the crime. "Solving" implies a riddle, a problem, an application of logic.

Police do this every day. IMV it is fatuous to seriously claim police having come across a brutal murder were only interested in "framing the American". Yet you are still vigorously arguing this unlikely proposition.

Police deal with low life, thieves, prostitutes, drugdealers. You are asking us to believe they victimised Amanda because she was the Ugly American abroad.

It is simply not credible.

This of course is a myopic perspective. I don't think they singled out Amanda because she was an American, but it didn't help Amanda either. They followed clues that pointed them in one direction and failed to reevaluate as new information became available.

We've seen similar dynamics at play in countless cases in the US. This is not just an Italian phenomenon. Take the case of Russia Faria. This man was convicted despite video, computer evidence and 4 people of good character placing him 20 miles away when the murder took place!

The police and prosecution are still convinced that he is the murderer.

 

[acbytesla]

acbytesla,

I very much agree with your post. And most of the alleged "suspicious" behavior appears to be merely the PDA of two young college students, who no doubt did not realize that their mutual affection displayed openly would generate jealousy and hatred from misogynists and corrupt police and prosecutors.

Agreed. I think the worst thing you could say about their behavior is that it might not have been appropriate. Nothing else.

 

[Dougm]

Giobbi is a hardnosed cop. Quit tryin' to charm this character as he'll have you in jail as soon as look at you, buddy.

Hmmm. You might think so, but if it were you there saying, "ta da!!", then having the temerity to eat pizza for dinner, Giobbi might have trumped up a case against you!!

I can just see the headlines now. "Inside the crazed fantasies of "Foxy Vixy"! The Daily Mail would have a field day!

 

[Grinder]

What constitutes "suspicious behavior"Grinder? Was it the kiss that Raffaele and Amanda shared in the car park? Or the putting on the booties and yelling "tada"? Or was it having pizza or buying underwear? Amanda seems like a unique character but not a murderous psycho.

You seem to have missed the point. What behavior would YOU consider suspicious? If it turned out they had done it, would anything, including what you mentioned, be suspicious? Would Raf knowing nothing was missing from the staged burglary be suspicious? I know it is very hard for you to do this sort of drill because all you can think is they are innocent, but if they weren't is the drill.

The second part is: What behavior could have been suspicious regardless of the whether they were involved or not?

You do this constantly. You come to a conclusion about this case and then you make it some indisputable truth. At one time, it was that Rudy had a date with Meredith. Then it was that Rudy wasn't really a burglar, now It's Giobbi making up stories to promote his own self importance.

Tesla could you refer me to where I said Rudi had a date. What I said was that what the british girls said didn't convince of anything because I think they were drunk as skunks and wanted Meredith to be saintly. I also felt some you included were prejudiced about Rudi. You made it seem that he was so unattractive no girl would be interested in him. I said he was perfectly ok looking and an athlete that could easily be attractive to women including Meredith. I also said he might have thought he had a date but Meredith forgot being drunk.

Rudi may have been a burglar or he may have been a fence or both. You want the crime wave meme. You told someone a few days ago you were going to get some info. Any progress or on Ms Diaz.

Why in world would you stand up for Giobbi? He was obviously a credit hound as the wall of shame photo proves. `Nothing and nobody supports the "mathematically certainty" remark yet you believe it because it fits your narrative.

I don't know for sure that you are wrong about any of this, but I also don't think we can say that you are right either .

Fine

 

[Grinder]

acbytesla,

I very much agree with your post. And most of the alleged "suspicious" behavior appears to be merely the PDA of two young college students, who no doubt did not realize that their mutual affection displayed openly would generate jealousy and hatred from misogynists and corrupt police and prosecutors.

Can you come up with behavior that is suspicious? You seem to believe that unless the police have a bloody knife with a person's name engraved being held by that person with blood all over them, they shouldn't be arrested.

I said that the kids themselves said their behavior was such that it drew suspicion but here that means the Stockholm effect.

 

[Bill Williams]

Can you come up with behavior that is suspicious? You seem to believe that unless the police have a bloody knife with a person's name engraved being held by that person with blood all over them, they shouldn't be arrested.

I said that the kids themselves said their behavior was such that it drew suspicion but here that means the Stockholm effect.

Suspicious of what? If you've answered the "what", I've missed it.

 

[Numbers]

Can you come up with behavior that is suspicious? You seem to believe that unless the police have a bloody knife with a person's name engraved being held by that person with blood all over them, they shouldn't be arrested.

I said that the kids themselves said their behavior was such that it drew suspicion but here that means the Stockholm effect.

I never said that any of the behavior of Amanda or Raffaele appeared suspicious. I don't believe that PDA or buying underwear when one is locked out of one's home or eating pizza or being perceived to wiggle your hips while putting on booties have any links to murder or rape.

Reporting the facts of a crime as you superficially know them, such as Raf saying "nothing was taken" in response to a police question is NOT suspicious. This was explained by Hellmann in his motivation report, as was the underwear BS. It show the low quality of Italian judicial practice that Hellmann had to discuss and refute these irrelevancies in his motivation report.

Do you have a list of suspicious behavior? You are entitled to your view, but it may not be that of others.

And arrests by police in the Council of Europe countries are, according to ECHR case-law, to be based on "reasonable suspicion", not arbitrarily defined "suspicious behavior". That is, there must be an objective element that a reasonable person would consider legitimate grounds for an arrest.

 

[Grinder]

Suspicious of what? If you've answered the "what", I've missed it.

Behavior that would be suspicious in terms of the investigations started Nov. 2nd 2007 in Perugia. What behavior would cause reasonable people including reasonable police to think someone might be involved or know something about the murder?

 

[Grinder]

I never said that any of the behavior of Amanda or Raffaele appeared suspicious. I don't believe that PDA or buying underwear when one is locked out of one's home or eating pizza or being perceived to wiggle your hips while putting on booties have any links to murder or rape.

Yes that's clear. You can't think of any behavior that would be suspicious or at least you haven't named it. I have never discussed booties or eating pizza or hip wiggles. I have mentioned Raf's 911 response, his mixing up the alibi dates and events, his knife in the police station that they knew from his chat with dad, and I'm guessing (because we haven't seen his witness interviews) a snarky attitude.

Reporting the facts of a crime as you superficially know them, such as Raf saying "nothing was taken" in response to a police question is NOT suspicious.

Of course it is. Especially because they believed it was staged.

Does the ECHR have a list of acceptable suspicious behavior?

 

[Bill Williams]

Behavior that would be suspicious in terms of the investigations started Nov. 2nd 2007 in Perugia. What behavior would cause reasonable people including reasonable police to think someone might be involved or know something about the murder?

Can someone describe the specific behaviour as described by the PLE, or other police, and why that behaviour can be seen as "suspicious", in he sense that it pointed in the direction of:

- the murder (if that is, indeed, what you meant by, "in terms of the investigations started Nov. 2nd 2007 in Perugia.")

- might be involved (in the murder)

- might know something about the murder.​

By this I mean, what does putting on booties and saying "oopla", reasonably mean in relation to pointing at the murder? There are other behaviours, that might need cycling through....

 

[acbytesla]

You seem to have missed the point. What behavior would YOU consider suspicious? If it turned out they had done it, would anything, including what you mentioned, be suspicious? Would Raf knowing nothing was missing from the staged burglary be suspicious? I know it is very hard for you to do this sort of drill because all you can think is they are innocent, but if they weren't is the drill.

That maybe the ONLY thing and even it is quiet questionable. I actually think the had reason to suspect Amanda and Raffaele, but their behavior was the least of them. In fact if anything it wasn't really guilty behavior at all. This according to Detective John Douglas.

The second part is: What behavior could have been suspicious regardless of the whether they were involved or not?

Fleeing the country for one. Calling, or emailing or texting Rudy especially after the murder. Having an insurance policy on her new roommate. Maybe trying to remove something from the crime scene like Filomena.

The fact is the police had little reason to suspect Amanda, but I think they looked at that seemingly high window and got locked into that their was no way this was a burglary. I also think they thought it was highly suspicious that Patrick showed up on Amanda's campus.

Tesla could you refer me to where I said Rudi had a date. What I said was that what the british girls said didn't convince of anything because I think they were drunk as skunks and wanted Meredith to be saintly. I also felt some you included were prejudiced about Rudi. You made it seem that he was so unattractive no girl would be interested in him. I said he was perfectly ok looking and an athlete that could easily be attractive to women including Meredith. I also said he might have thought he had a date but Meredith forgot being drunk.

Rudi may have been a burglar or he may have been a fence or both. You want the crime wave meme. You told someone a few days ago you were going to get some info. Any progress or on Ms Diaz.

I haven't heard back from Nina.

Why in world would you stand up for Giobbi? He was obviously a credit hound as the wall of shame photo proves. `Nothing and nobody supports the "mathematically certainty" remark yet you believe it because it fits your narrative

I'm not standing up for Giobbi and my guess is he is a credit hound. That said, I have no reason to conclude what he said was false. And I don't think the fact that the police didn't order Amanda to come to the station as proof that Giobbi didn't tell them to pick up both of them.

 

[Strozzi]

These are some good points. However, it would be a mistake to ignore behaviour. This is because the autonomous nervous system is largely involuntary. It's why we can breathe, our hearts beat and our glands perspire without our thinking about it.

The polygraph (lie detector) works on the principle we have no control over the ANS. Thus, no matter how cool headed you are, or rationally minded, lying is physiologically stressful, causing the damp from the increased perspiration, to cause the galvanometer swing above base rate.

Police and border control officers look out for signs of overly nervous reactions, for example excess sweating, the fight or flight syndrome caused by the adrenal glands kicking out cortisol, adrenaline and noradrenaline, which can cause trembling, the desire to run, fainting, vomiting, pallor, need to defaecate, etc.

It is known criminals are sometimes on a high after a crime. Of course, you will spot it.

Giobbi was a high ranking senior cop who recognises inappropriate behaviour. Amanda flirting with him was a bizarrely callous response whilst on the threshold of the murder scene.

Amanda flirting with Giobbi??? Never heard that one before. Next time we will be told she was flirting with Napoleoni.

Before entering the house Giobbi, Napoleoni, and others each put cloth booties over their shoes to protect the forensic integrity (what a joke) of the interior. Some leaned against the wall to help maintain their balance as they did so. Amanda while standing put booties over her shoes, one first then the other, without loosing her balance. Standing up straight, she then said "ta da". Giobbi thought of Italian TV game show girls' wiggle.

 

[Bill Williams]

You seem to have missed the point. What behavior would YOU consider suspicious? If it turned out they had done it, would anything, including what you mentioned, be suspicious? Would Raf knowing nothing was missing from the staged burglary be suspicious? I know it is very hard for you to do this sort of drill because all you can think is they are innocent, but if they weren't is the drill.

That maybe the ONLY thing and even it is quiet questionable. I actually think the had reason to suspect Amanda and Raffaele, but their behavior was the least of them. In fact if anything it wasn't really guilty behavior at all. This according to Detective John Douglas.

The ONLY reason I can see to investigate Amanda Knox, and secondarily Raffaele Sollecito, is because it is always prudent to start from the centre and work one's way out.

Starting from the centre means that the forensics in the murder room are primary. However, Amanda is investigatible simply on the ground that she was a key-holder. Even if Amanda had nothing to do with the crime at all (which, incidentally, she did not) the PLE was well within their right to create a timeline of the possession of her key.

They were well within their right to ask to go through Amanda's contacts in her phone, because one of the legitimate investigative lines was that it could have been someone from the previous evening's Hallowe'en party; even someone who Amanda did not see Meredith with.

It's called gumshoe investigation. As ACbyTESLA said, the last thing to suspect about those two was their behaviour. If the PLE could establish that the key never left Amanda's possession, then that pretty much rules out that someone let Rudy in.

Unless of course they did the same timeline with Filomena's key, as well as Laura (and Meredith's for that matter....). Were they even asked, "Did you lose you key on the night of Nov 1?"

Was the landlord even asked about an inventory of keys from former renters - any known keys out in the wild? Was any of this done?