Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

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?

In this discussion board bloggy age it is difficult to separate one argument from another. Or perhaps I should say arguer. Many people in the PIP camp have made the framing contention and many from the first instance. Some have argued here that the PLE immediately recognized Rudi's MO and some think that he was their unpaid informer they needed to protect. Some believe both.

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.

In Italy, perhaps as a hangover from the inquisitorial system, the prosecutors works hand in hand with the police and actually leads the investigation. At least in this case it was reported that Mignini was in charge from the very beginning. He also was in charge of the interviews at some point. He may have ordered Amanda in

One of my biggest issues with the PGP is that they can't see that the investigation was so messed up that even if guilty the ILE blew it. They can't say the collection by swap off the sink HAD to combine DNAs. Mops in gift wrap. Evidence store in the cottage freezer.

 

[Grinder]

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.

So going into a place and taking what she could have had hours before during the cleanup or just before the crime tape up would be suspicious. Funny.

So the only things they could do that would have been suspicious would be to call the murderer or flee the country? Insurance wouldn't be suspicious behavior it would be a motive and wouldn't be after the fact.

Apparently their is a group here that believes no behavior after the crime could be suspicious if it was just how someone acted. The arsonist watching the fire grinning wouldn't be suspicious. People here might say that people react differently to fires

Suspicious behavior doesn't have to rise to level of proof of a crime. It doesn't even have to rise to level of being mentioned in an arrest warrant.

In the arrest warrant Raf's knife is mentioned and his imprecise recollection of the events before and during the murder. Amanda's statement is mentioned.

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.

I'd say that the police not supporting his contention and being angry with AK for coming along, as well as AK saying she wasn't requested to come in is pretty strong proof. What would be better? His failing a lie-detector test?

Maybe Follain has the inside dope on this. Are there any other examples of the PLE ignoring orders from the equal of De Felice?

 

[Bill Williams]

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

Upthread I re-quoted a poster from March 28, 2015, who said that the real problem with this case, was that it relied purely on judicially generated "evidence", meaning no evidence coming directly from forensics (esp. independent forensics), but all stuff that was either inserted into the case by cops/prosecutor, or inventions/assertions of prosecutors/judges.

Read the grounds for arrest again.

The misunderstanding of the text-exchange between Knox and Lumumba is there - the ONLY people misunderstanding it are the cops.

The "numerous irregularities" are all the cops' own misinterpretations, the result of calling either Knox or Sollecito a liar for their first interpretation. The irregularities come from the efforts of the cops to get K and S to change their stories - without lawyers, and in Knox's case without a competent translator.

One other thing. Where's the hue and cry within Italy about the delay in te Marasca motivations report? Where is the coverage of he claim that Marasca is getting prepared to do a 180 degree turn from Mach 27? Is there ANYONE saying anything about this other than Mignini, or his minions Machiavelli and Andrea Vogt?

 

[Grinder]

Vixen is advancing a strawman argument.

Not really. It may be a straw man for one particular poster but as a group plenty claim that the PLE/ILE went after Amanda because she is an American and pretty at that. The PIP/FOA early spiel included plenty of that.

Vixen may have addressed this to a person that hasn't actually said it or even believe it, but that is one of the frustrations of this type of discussion. A group has the same POV in general but takes on only bits and pieces of the total list assertions allowing that person to legitimately deny making aspects of the argument but retaining the thrust.

Naturally this works both ways as PIP attack a PGP position that not every PGP holds.

 

[Bill Williams]

Not really. It may be a straw man for one particular poster but as a group plenty claim that the PLE/ILE went after Amanda because she is an American and pretty at that. The PIP/FOA early spiel included plenty of that.

Citation please.

 

[Mr Fied]

In this discussion board bloggy age it is difficult to separate one argument from another. Or perhaps I should say arguer. Many people in the PIP camp have made the framing contention and many from the first instance. Some have argued here that the PLE immediately recognized Rudi's MO and some think that he was their unpaid informer they needed to protect. Some believe both.

In Italy, perhaps as a hangover from the inquisitorial system, the prosecutors works hand in hand with the police and actually leads the investigation. At least in this case it was reported that Mignini was in charge from the very beginning. He also was in charge of the interviews at some point. He may have ordered Amanda in

One of my biggest issues with the PGP is that they can't see that the investigation was so messed up that even if guilty the ILE blew it. They can't say the collection by swap off the sink HAD to combine DNAs. Mops in gift wrap. Evidence store in the cottage freezer.

Grinder

The original premise put forward by Vixen was that it is the police's job to push for conviction.

My answer was that it was the police's job to gather evidence and the prosecutors job to achieve conviction. I understand what you say about the prosecutor's role in the Italian system. However, as the head of the investigation I would suggest the prosecutor could point the police in the direction of the evidence he wanted to find, but that evidence would still have to be proved valid.

What seems to have happened in this case is that pieces of evidence have been badly collected, ignored completely or the results twisted/hidden.

My view is that if the evidence collection and scientific examinations had been done correctly from the start, the results would almost certainly have pointed to Guede. Knox and Sollecito would have not been considered as suspects and the Kercher's would have found the truth with a lot less torment than they have had to endure.

 

[whoanellie]

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?

I agree that Amanda's and Raf's innocence doesn't mean they were incapable of suspicious behavior. At the same time I don't believe that just because investigators say something was suspicious then it necessarily was truly suspicious.

When I first starting reading internet fora regarding this case, I read that Raf had called 112 after the arrival of the Postal Police. Despite being convinced he was innocent, I thought that was highly suspicious behavior on his part. Then I read in his report that even Massei didn't believe that claim. In his report, Hellman then completely demolished the idea. [Did Nencini really bring this idea back up having heard no evidence to support the claim? Did he even read the Hellman report?]. Now, the fact that the police/prosecutor have made the claim makes me highly suspicious of their abilities and integrity.

Regarding Raf knowing nothing was missing, usually such statements are suspicious for one of two reasons. Either the statement is true and reveals knowledge that only a guilty part should know or the statement is clearly a lie told to divert the investigator's attention. In my opinion, Raf's statement that nothing was missing doesn't clearly fit into either of those categories. First of all it wasn't true and he would know that it wasn't true if he were guilty. Meredith's phones were in fact missing. From a guilt perspective I guess you could claim that he lied to cover up the fact that he knew something was missing from inside Meredith's locked room. BUT, both Amanda and Raf had spent a considerable amount of time in the apartment before placing the call. My understanding is not much was disturbed and to the extent Amanda had looked around and done an inventory nothing was in fact missing. What exactly is suspicious about stating that?

To whom and when do you believe that statement was suspicious? Who testified that it was suspicious? Was it suspicious to the operator who took the call at the time of the call?

Is there a tape of the call? Did Raf give a spontaneous statement or did he ask Amanda during the call? If so, can her response be heard? Did Raf definitively say nothing was missing or was it more of a not that we can tell? Did they discuss whether anything was missing before the call?

Given the fact that it is clear to me the police cannot be trusted, based on the claim of the timing of the 112 call, without further information about the exact nature of the statement I can't jump to the conclusion that it was suspicious.

 

[Numbers]

So going into a place and taking what she could have had hours before during the cleanup or just before the crime tape up would be suspicious. Funny.

So the only things they could do that would have been suspicious would be to call the murderer or flee the country? Insurance wouldn't be suspicious behavior it would be a motive and wouldn't be after the fact.

Apparently their is a group here that believes no behavior after the crime could be suspicious if it was just how someone acted. The arsonist watching the fire grinning wouldn't be suspicious. People here might say that people react differently to fires

Suspicious behavior doesn't have to rise to level of proof of a crime. It doesn't even have to rise to level of being mentioned in an arrest warrant.

In the arrest warrant Raf's knife is mentioned and his imprecise recollection of the events before and during the murder. Amanda's statement is mentioned.




I'd say that the police not supporting his contention and being angry with AK for coming along, as well as AK saying she wasn't requested to come in is pretty strong proof. What would be better? His failing a lie-detector test?

Maybe Follain has the inside dope on this. Are there any other examples of the PLE ignoring orders from the equal of De Felice?

"Suspicious behavior" is an interesting concept. But what is the definition? It does not seem to be amenable to an "objective" consideration. If you look at the ECHR definition based on their case-law, "reasonable suspicion" which is to be grounds for arrest is based on what an "objective observer" would perceive. This of course shifts the issue to what the definition of "objective observer" might be.

Here is a relevant definition of "objective":

3
a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art> <an objective history of the war> <an objective judgment>
b of a test : limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum
Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective

I think the problem with "suspicious behavior" as allegedly used by the Italian police as an indicator is that it does not meet the test of objectivity, as presented in the above definition. And in fact, if one examines the grounds alleged for arrest in the arrest warrant, the grounds relied on apparently objective facts, such as statements by Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. But these statements were false and obtained under police methods that were procedurally illegal in Italy, and at least in Knox's case, were in violation of Italian criminal law. So the "suspicious behavior" was never used directly as grounds for arrest, because the police and prosecutor knew what they called "suspicious behavior" did not meet the required objectiveness test. That is why they went on to break the law to get false but seemingly objective evidence as grounds for the arrest. But this was done through official misconduct, and that misconduct was in violation of the European Convention of Human Rights.

If the police and/or had thought the "suspicious behavior" was really evidence that Knox or Sollecitio had committed a crime, they would have followed Italian legal procedures and provided legal counsel and a fair interpreter to Knox in her interrogation. Instead, they did everything necessary with this individual to induce a false statement. She told them the truth about the text messages with Lumumba when they first asked, but they broke her resistance by their methods. This is a violation of the Convention. And it doesn't matter to the eventual ECHR judgment in this case how often Italian police have followed this pattern of unfair behavior that violates the Convention.

 

[acbytesla]

So going into a place and taking what she could have had hours before during the cleanup or just before the crime tape up would be suspicious. Funny.

So the only things they could do that would have been suspicious would be to call the murderer or flee the country? Insurance wouldn't be suspicious behavior it would be a motive and wouldn't be after the fact.

Apparently their is a group here that believes no behavior after the crime could be suspicious if it was just how someone acted. The arsonist watching the fire grinning wouldn't be suspicious. People here might say that people react differently to fires

Suspicious behavior doesn't have to rise to level of proof of a crime. It doesn't even have to rise to level of being mentioned in an arrest warrant.

In the arrest warrant Raf's knife is mentioned and his imprecise recollection of the events before and during the murder. Amanda's statement is mentioned.

Aye, there's the rub. "Suspicious behavior to one person maybe totally unsuspicious to another. This ends up being a catch all. It's not really evidence and is not probable cause.

I'd say that the police not supporting his contention and being angry with AK for coming along, as well as AK saying she wasn't requested to come in is pretty strong proof. What would be better? His failing a lie-detector test?

Maybe Follain has the inside dope on this. Are there any other examples of the PLE ignoring orders from the equal of De Felice?

Have you thought there might be a little power struggle going on here? Like the FBI getting involved in a crime investigation and the locals aren't really interested in their help.

 

[RWVBWL]

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.

I'd say that the police not supporting his contention and being angry with AK for coming along, as well as AK saying she wasn't requested to come in is pretty strong proof. What would be better? His failing a lie-detector test?

Maybe Follain has the inside dope on this. Are there any other examples of the PLE ignoring orders from the equal of De Felice?

Greetings,
I'd be curious to read a list of police which the Debate Group believes lied.
Michele Battistelli, who said he did not enter Meredith's bedroom?
Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni?
Others?

Feel free to add...

 

[Grinder]

Grinder

The original premise put forward by Vixen was that it is the police's job to push for conviction.

My answer was that it was the police's job to gather evidence and the prosecutors job to achieve conviction. I understand what you say about the prosecutor's role in the Italian system. However, as the head of the investigation I would suggest the prosecutor could point the police in the direction of the evidence he wanted to find, but that evidence would still have to be proved valid.

What seems to have happened in this case is that pieces of evidence have been badly collected, ignored completely or the results twisted/hidden.

My view is that if the evidence collection and scientific examinations had been done correctly from the start, the results would almost certainly have pointed to Guede. Knox and Sollecito would have not been considered as suspects and the Kercher's would have found the truth with a lot less torment than they have had to endure.

Yes. Had they released the kids to home detention and then released PL when they found Rudi, and then dropped the charges I'm sure the Kerchers would have been better served.

 

[acbytesla]

Greetings,
I'd be curious to read a list of police which the Debate Group believes lied.
Michele Battistelli, who said he did not enter Meredith's bedroom?
Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni?
Others?

Feel free to add...

I'm curious who Giobbi gave the instructions to. Does anyone know the answer to that? People lie, they also misremember. But I'm confident that Commodi and Mignini lied as well. It wouldn't surprise me that all the people other than Amanda lied about her being hit.

We've seen for example in the US police lie about interactions that happen with civillians and then we see the video. Ooops. I've seen cops try and take cell phones away from bystanders during incidents when they had no right to do so. Well never know if those interrogations were recorded. I have little doubt that the police could make them disappear if they wanted to and lie about it later. Cops aren't saints and history tells us that some cops and some jurisdictions have a history of doing whatever is necessary to get a conviction, including lying.

 

[Grinder]

I'm curious who Giobbi gave the instructions to. Does anyone know the answer to that?

Detective No Name.

 

[Strozzi]

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.

Is it true - is there evidence - that the police installed a listening device in Patric's bar before they elicited from Amanda with whom she exchanged the "see you later" text? If so, that proves they were looking at him as the killer before the midnight interrogation.

 

[Kauffer]

Yes. Had they released the kids to home detention and then released PL when they found Rudi, and then dropped the charges I'm sure the Kerchers would have been better served.

I agree, but they couldn't get the idea of a staged burglary out of their minds.

 

[RWVBWL]

Is it true - is there evidence - that the police installed a listening device in Patric's bar before they elicited from Amanda who she exchanged tests with? If so, that proves they were looking at him as the killer before the midnight interrogation.

That's a good 1 Strozzi!
Did the cops install a listening device in Lumumba's bar before they arrested him?
Or while it was closed and he sat in prison?
Or after Lumumba was released?

 

[Kauffer]

Greetings,
I'd be curious to read a list of police which the Debate Group believes lied.
Michele Battistelli, who said he did not enter Meredith's bedroom?
Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni?
Others?

Feel free to add...

Mignini lied about his role in the 5th/6th interrogation.

 

[acbytesla]

Detective No Name.

I'm sure he'll vouch for Giobbi.

 

[Grinder]

I agree, but they couldn't get the idea of a staged burglary out of their minds.

Yes. They did really believe that and that would skew the case. I read recently that before Filomena arrived IIRC her boyfriend went into the room and looked around which could account for some of glass being moved.

 

[Grinder]

I'm sure he'll vouch for Giobbi.

You could email him and I'm sure he will assure you and promise the proof later.

Which reminds me that another poster promised us the recordings of Amanda's interrogation would be revealed "sooner than later". Is it later yet?