Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Strozzi]

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.

I take Giobbi at his word. I believe him when he said he gave orders to the police to bring both Raffaele and Amanda in that night for questioning. I believe him when he says he was in the control room during the night interrogations and heard Amanda screaming. I believe Giobbi when he says Police Chief de Felice was there in the control room too. I believe Giobbi when he watched Amanda stand up straight after being in an off-balance poisition putting on shoe booties and perceiving her movement as she stood back up as like the wiggle he sees on Italian TV when game-show girls wiggle. I believe Giobbi when he said he concluded Amanda is guilty before he obtained physical evidence. I believe Giobbi when he said he knew Amanda was guilty when he learned she was eating Italian pizza 4 nights after the murder. I believe Giobbi hung a photo of Amanda on his hallway office wall of criminals before she was charged with a crime.

 

[acbytesla]

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?

I have never really understood why they focused on Amanda and Raffaele. Amanda may have been a little different but she hardly frothing at the mouth. There is no history of animosity between Amanda and Meredith. And frankly the idea of the organization gone awry or the Satanic ritual is just downright stupid. That Amanda and Raffaele had been dating for only a single week should have also brought these investigators to their senses. Frankly, I think there are a lot of very stupid people out there.

 

[carbonjam72]

I have never really understood why they focused on Amanda and Raffaele. Amanda may have been a little different but she hardly frothing at the mouth. There is no history of animosity between Amanda and Meredith. And frankly the idea of the organization gone awry or the Satanic ritual is just downright stupid. That Amanda and Raffaele had been dating for only a single week should have also brought these investigators to their senses. Frankly, I think there are a lot of very stupid people out there.

Ok, but the line of thought you've expressed here only looks at these two defendants on the merits.

What you aren't addressing is Mignini's needs at that point in time. Specifically, he needed a girl for his orgy scenario, a similar theme to the one for which he had just been indicted for abuse of office.

They seemed to have wanted amanda to implicate Patrick, so they must have had some reason to believe a 'black man' was involved in the crime. Amanda livd there and worked for Patrick, so they just needed to break Amanda, and break Raf for providing her with an alibi.

I don't think it makes sense to try to understand these logical flights of fancy without taking into account the needs of the protagonists at the time. Mignini needed a girl for his orgy, Giobbi needed a master criminal for his trophy wall, the worse the better.

I think you have to start by recognizing Mignini is crazy, and Giobbi is a blithering idiot.

 

[Numbers]

1. 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.



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

3. Does the ECHR have a list of acceptable suspicious behavior?

1. The only point you bring up I would consider potentially suspicious is that Raf carried a knife. I doubt that carrying a knife by itself provided reasonable suspicion for an arrest. And indeed, IIRC, that knife was seized when he was arrested, tested, and not found to have any evidence of connection to the murder. In the larger scope of a thorough and professional investigation, all the likely knives remaining in the cottage Meredith lived in would have been tested for blood, and if positive for blood, for Meredith's DNA associated with the blood.

2. It doesn't matter from a European Convention on Human rights viewpoint that the incompetent police believed falsities about the case, such as that the break-in was staged, in terms of who they suspected or arrested, or whether they falsely claimed to have believed the break-in was staged, so that they could focus on the convenient suspects. Italy, through its agents, the police and prosecutor, still violated the Convention if they used a standard of "suspicious behavior" rather than one of "reasonable suspicion".

3. Is your question meant as a joke? There is no ECHR list of "acceptable suspicious behavior". The ECHR case-law refers to and defines "reasonable suspicion" as the grounds for a lawful arrest that is in accordance with the Convention. IIRC, it is "objective evidence that would suggest to a reasonable person that an individual may be guilty of a crime". In an earlier post, I quoted the standard and unvarying definition of reasonable suspicion that ECHR uses; I will look for that and repost it.

 

[Numbers]

ECHR case-law definition of reasonable suspicion (extracted from the case quoted below):

"The suspicion must be based on reasonable grounds {and not arbitrary ones}.... {that there exist} facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that the person concerned may have committed the offence. What may be regarded as "reasonable" will depend upon all the circumstances."


From: ILGAR MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN 15172/13 22/05/2014
87. The Court reiterates that in order for an arrest on reasonable suspicion to be justified under Article 5 § 1 (c), it is not necessary for the police to have obtained sufficient evidence to bring charges, either at the point of arrest or while the applicant is in custody (see Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom, 29 November 1988, § 53, Series A no. 145‑B). Nor is it necessary that the person detained should ultimately have been charged or taken before a court. The object of detention for questioning is to further a criminal investigation by confirming or discontinuing suspicions which provide the grounds for detention. Thus, facts which raise a suspicion need not be of the same level as those necessary to justify a conviction or even the bringing of a charge, which comes at the next stage of the process of criminal investigation (see Murray v. the United Kingdom, 28 October 1994, § 55, Series A no. 300‑A).

88. However, the requirement that the suspicion must be based on reasonable grounds forms an essential part of the safeguard against arbitrary arrest and detention. The fact that a suspicion is held in good faith is insufficient. The words “reasonable suspicion” mean the existence of facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that the person concerned may have committed the offence. What may be regarded as “reasonable” will depend upon all the circumstances (see Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. the United Kingdom, 30 August 1990, § 32, Series A no. 182). The length of the deprivation of liberty may also be material to the level of suspicion required (see Murray, cited above, § 56).

89. When assessing the “reasonableness” of the suspicion, the Court must be enabled to ascertain whether the essence of the safeguard afforded by Article 5 § 1 (c) has been secured. Consequently, the respondent Government have to furnish at least some facts or information capable of satisfying the Court that the arrested person was reasonably suspected of having committed the alleged offence (see Fox, Campbell and Hartley, cited above, § 34 in fine).

 

[Ken Dine]

I take Giobbi at his word. I believe him when he said he gave orders to the police to bring both Raffaele and Amanda in that night for questioning.

I believe him when he says he was in the control room during the night interrogations and heard Amanda screaming.

I believe Giobbi when he says Police Chief de Felice was there in the control room too.

I believe Giobbi when he watched Amanda stand up straight after being in an off-balance position putting on shoe booties and perceiving her movement as she stood back up as like the wiggle he sees on Italian TV when game-show girls wiggle.

I believe Giobbi when he said he concluded Amanda is guilty before he obtained physical evidence.

I believe Giobbi when he said he knew Amanda was guilty when he learned she was eating Italian pizza 4 nights after the murder.

I believe Giobbi hung a photo of Amanda on his hallway office wall of criminals before she was charged with a crime.

You rightly believe all those things since they are verified facts ...except, for Amanda's sexual 'Ta Da' moment after putting on her booties, which sounds more like Giobbi's interpretation of what happened, and even if true, Amanda's 'Ta Da' moment would still NOT have any relevancy in a murder investigation.

 

[Ken Dine]

Ok, but the line of thought you've expressed here only looks at these two defendants on the merits.

What you aren't addressing is Mignini's needs at that point in time. Specifically, he needed a girl for his orgy scenario, a similar theme to the one for which he had just been indicted for abuse of office.

They seemed to have wanted amanda to implicate Patrick, so they must have had some reason to believe a 'black man' was involved in the crime.

The police found five (5) curly African hairs in Meredith's bedroom, so from DAY-1 the police knew that they were looking for a Black perp, and Lumumba was one of the few African men living in Perugia, and Amanda worked for Lumumba, so CASE CLOSED!

The police were under pressure to quickly close the case with all the foreign students living there, so Amanda & Lumumba both fit the bill since they could blame Meredith's murder as an aberration committed by non-Italians.

Raffaele was unfortunately Italian, so they eventually made him a bit player under the spell of Amanda (the witch). If Raffaele had played ball early on, then the police could have written his part to be the witch's unwitting new boyfriend who simply fell asleep as his witch-GF snuck out to murder.

Amanda livd there and worked for Patrick, so they just needed to break Amanda, and break Raf for providing her with an alibi.

I don't think it makes sense to try to understand these logical flights of fancy without taking into account the needs of the protagonists at the time. Mignini needed a girl for his orgy, Giobbi needed a master criminal for his trophy wall, the worse the better.

I think you have to start by recognizing Mignini is crazy, and Giobbi is a blithering idiot.

HALLELUJAH!

 

[Numbers]

ECHR case-law definition of reasonable suspicion (extracted from the case quoted below):

"The suspicion must be based on reasonable grounds {and not arbitrary ones}.... {that there exist} facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that the person concerned may have committed the offence. What may be regarded as "reasonable" will depend upon all the circumstances."


....

Here are the grounds for the arrest of Knox, Sollecito, and Lumumba, from the arrest warrant authored by Mignini. Almost all the information in the grounds is from the interrogations of Nov. 5/6, and were (if one believes the allegations of Knox and Sollecito) actually coerced statements obtained in violation of Italian procedural laws and, especially for Knox, of Italian criminal law CP 377-bis. The phone text message as quoted is allegedly truncated to leave off the closing "have a good night" phrase. Sollecito's shoes and pocket knife are mentioned; these were seized during the interrogation.

If the major part of the information relied on for the grounds of the arrest are the result of police mistreatment or coercion, and indeed are false, is the arrest based on "reasonable suspicion"? Where are the references to the "suspicious behavior" some posters think justified the arrest?

For that which concerns KNOX and DIYA, the former gave conspicuously contradictory and improbable deposition in the course of the investigation. In particular, KNOX affirmed to have spent the night between the 1st and 2nd of November in the company of SOLLECITO Raffaele, met by her only a few days before the fact, while he, after initially confirming KNOX's declarations, confessed to have lied according to KNOX's direction and clarified as having separated from KNOX at 9:30PM on the 1st of November 2007, remaining in his residence where he received a call on his land-line from his father at 11:30PM. Furthermore, by the data relative to the cell phone traffic of the number 3484673590, in use by KNOX, emerges a void of traffic from 8:35PM of the 1st of November to 12:00PM of the 2nd of November. There is an analogous void of cell phone traffic from 8:42PM of November 1st to 6:02AM of November 2nd found in the traffic for the number 3403574303 in use by SOLLECITO Raffaele. A text message was found to have been sent at 8:35PM of November 1st by KNOX's number 3484673590 to 3387195723, that of her co-defendant Patrick, in which she wrote "Ci vediamo dopo" ["See you later" or lit: "We'll see each other after"] thus confirming that in the following hours KNOX would find herself with Patrick in the apartment where the victim was.

KNOX, in the deposition of this date, finally confessed to the criminal action perpetrated against Kercher; the defendant, in fact, testified as having met with Patrick, as was communicated in the message found in the memory of her cell phone operating in Perugia, the message of 8:35PM, responding to a message from DIYA arrived at 8:18PM, identified thanks to the analysis of the cell phone traffic relative to the number in use by KNOX.

This last message was not present in the memory of the cell phone.

The same KNOX, in the deposition of this date, then confessed that, having met with Diya at the basketball court of Piazza Grimana, she went with DIYA to Meredith's residence where Diya, after having sexual relations with the victim, killed her.

The sexual intercourse must be considered of a violent nature, considering the particularly intimidating context in which it occurred, of which KNOX must be considered to have contributed.

Furthermore, it must be added that KNOX, in the spontaneous depositions given on this same day, punctually confirmed to have contacted DIYA, to have met with him the night between the 1st and 2nd of November and to gone with him to the apartment of the victim. She then said to have stayed outside the bedroom of the victim while DIYA went inside with her and she added to have heard the scream of the young woman.

KNOX testified to particularities that confirmed hers and SOLLECITO Raffaele's involvement in the event, like the fact that she awoke after the fact in the latter's bed.

Regarding the elements against SOLLECITO, there are numerous incongruities verified in his first declarations in respect to his latest and the fact that, from preliminary observations, the shoe print of the shoe worn by SOLLECITO appears compatible in form with that found at the scene of the crime. Furthermore, the fact that KNOX declares to not remember what happened between the scream of the victim and her reawakening in the morning in Sollecito's bed who, furthermore, was found to have in his possession a pocket knife that could in the abstract be compatible, in type and dimensions (full length 18cm, of which 8.5cm being the blade), with the object that produced the most severe wound in the neck of the victim.

Source: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/case-files-reports/
Decree for Arrest Nov 06, 2007

 

[MichaelB]

Sophie Purton witness statement 3-Nov-2007: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Sophie-Purton-Statement-3-Nov-2007.pdf

 

[kwill]

Giobbi perceived it as a flirtatious shimmy.

That's on him, not her.

 

[Numbers]

The police found five (5) curly African hairs in Meredith's bedroom, so from DAY-1 the police knew that they were looking for a Black perp, and Lumumba was one of the few African men living in Perugia, and Amanda worked for Lumumba, so CASE CLOSED!

The police were under pressure to quickly close the case with all the foreign students living there, so Amanda & Lumumba both fit the bill since they could blame Meredith's murder as an aberration committed by non-Italians.

Raffaele was unfortunately Italian, so they eventually made him a bit player under the spell of Amanda (the witch). If Raffaele had played ball early on, then the police could have written his part to be the witch's unwitting new boyfriend who simply fell asleep as his witch-GF snuck out to murder.




HALLELUJAH!

Is there documentation for this, and if so, how reliable is the documentation?

I ask because I have read that the police concluded that the "hairs" were really fibers from a fabric, or that there really were no such hairs or fibers at all. Of course, the Italian police are not the most reliable when it comes to forensics, as shown in this case.

 

[Planigale]

Is there documentation for this, and if so, how reliable is the documentation?

I ask because I have read that the police concluded that the "hairs" were really fibers from a fabric, or that there really were no such hairs or fibers at all. Of course, the Italian police are not the most reliable when it comes to forensics, as shown in this case.

I have never seen any documentation about the hairs being curly. I have seen comments about a variety of fibres in different colours. There does not seem any documented formal forensic examination of the fibres documented. Formal forensic examination by microscope would be needed to conclude any fibres were human hair, what colour, and likely ethnicity. I have never seen more than comments based on naked eye appearance, which is not reliable for attribution.

 

[carbonjam72]

I have never seen any documentation about the hairs being curly. I have seen comments about a variety of fibres in different colours. There does not seem any documented formal forensic examination of the fibres documented. Formal forensic examination by microscope would be needed to conclude any fibres were human hair, what colour, and likely ethnicity. I have never seen more than comments based on naked eye appearance, which is not reliable for attribution.

there was one or more hair strand and blood on the windowsill in Filomena's room, right? Except Stefanoni couldn't get a DNA profile from the blood, and somehow lost the hair? I that right? And C&V were skeptical about the inability to get a DNA profile from the blood?

If it were Rudy's blood & DNA on filo's window, the break-in window, wouldn't that pretty much end the staged breakin theory?

 

[Kauffer]

Sophie Purton witness statement 3-Nov-2007: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Sophie-Purton-Statement-3-Nov-2007.pdf

She says: "Meredith has a blog"! Really?

 

[carbonjam72]

I have this guys email address if anyone wants to write to him and set him straight. He's wrong about just about everything!

care to share it?

btw, the link only goes to a pay wall. Is this available somewhere to be seen without registering?

 

[MichaelB]

She says: "Meredith has a blog"! Really?

It could be a mistake and she really means Facebook which Meredith had. But I've never heard of her having a blog.

 

[MichaelB]

care to share it?

I emailed the guy and he wrote a decent length reply but I got the feeling he's stuck in his ways and not open to reasoning with. So imo it's probably best to just leave it.

He has the link to AK Case and I told him about all the translations so the info is there if he does get curious....but I doubt it. He has finished with his series. The time to email him was 7 months ago.

I still can't believe he latched on to the phony staged break-in theory and Raffaele's print on the bathmat which are just as bad as toto and Quintavalle which he saw straight through. I gave him the link to Professor Vinci's report on the bathmat print.

 

[carbonjam72]

I emailed the guy and he wrote a decent length reply but I got the feeling he's stuck in his ways and not open to reasoning with. So imo it's probably best to just leave it.

He has the link to AK Case and I told him about all the translations so the info is there if he does get curious....but I doubt it. He has finished with his series. The time to email him was 7 months ago.

I still can't believe he latched on to the phony staged break-in theory and Raffaele's print on the bathmat which are just as bad as toto and Quintavalle which he saw straight through. I gave him the link to Professor Vinci's report on the bathmat print.

I'm fascinated by his claim that a findng of DNA in a house automatically means presence at the time of a crime committed there.

Wish you had given him the links to these boards and let him test his ideas here. Strange fellow.

 

[Mr Fied]

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.

Here we go again. This is just like the mountain of evidence, lie upon lie.

Where have I said that they were framing Amanda because she was American?

Where have I said that the police victimised her because she was an ugly American abroad?

All I said was that the police's job is to gather the evidence. It is then up to the prosecutors to determine if that evidence is good enough to secure a conviction.

The one fact that we should all be able to agree on is that the evidence gathering in this case was a cock up from the start.

 

[Grinder]

Numbers do you have any ECHR examples on Perugian misconduct? Or any cases about Italians not declaring someone a suspect properly?

It would seem that from your case examples the Italian system would be a best customer for ECHR and not just for length of process, which IIRC was their number one sin.