Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

Did he accuse them of misconduct? Why would they not say they called them both in since you contend it was ordered and they both showed up?

The only reasonable analysis is that Giobbi is full of himself and wanted to take credit.

Is your comment here a joke? Are you claiming the person who nearly admits to planning and staging a procedurally illegal interrogation will accuse the police who carried it out for him of misconduct?

The police are protecting themselves against some hypothetical honest Public Minister.

Giobbi's statements about the interrogation are not as you believe. For instance, he acknowledges that Amanda Knox had an emotional reaction during the interrogation, crying and screaming. This does nothing to establish his reputation (among reasonable people); it does show that the interrogation had unpleasant and coercive elements. This statement is backed up by statements from Raffaele in his book.

The lower ranking (Pergian) police apparently deny Amanda was treated harshly, threatened, or hit, yet she claims she was. Does that indicate to you that those police are credible and Amanda not? Do you thus agree with PM Mignini that Amanda committed criminal calunnia against the police?

 

[acbytesla]

But all of this is nit picking. I think that, although some of the details are unclear, the behavior of the cops shows a couple of clear things:

* Amanda was suspected from the first or second day
* The cops stepped up the intensity of their interrogation of both Raff and Amanda on the evening of the 5th
* There was a large number of police assembled at the Questura that evening to participate in an interrogation -- they didn't need 12 or 13 of them participating to question them. This was a plan to get them to crack that night

I think the above points are clear. We can debate why they chose that evening to do it: Was it Edda Mellas' arrival from the US? Was it increasing pressure to solve the case for various reasons? Or did it just fit the cops' vacation schedule? I don't know for sure, although some ideas make more sense than others. I guess it matters if people are trying to make a case for some grand conspiracy, but to me it looks like standard police work -- done badly, but standard.

If Amanda and Raffaele had actually been guilty, no one would be talking about the now famous interrogation, even if it was done in an unlawful way. But they are not guilty, and, much as the whole investigation/interrogation was poorly done, where it really went off the rails is when the forensics came in, there was no proof AK and RS were even present that night, and they decided to prosecute anyway.

Exactly, all of this is nit picking. Amanda and Raffaele are innocent, regardless of what the crazies might say. There are some minor details that might be wrong, but the point is that they are minor.

Grinder likes to portray himself as totally neutral but that he's convinced in the kids are innocent. So am I. I don't even thing it is remotely close that there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt and in my mind there is excellent proof that they are totally innocent.

There is the computer evidence and the digestion evidence.

OR the very unlikely idea that Amanda or Raffaele or even Rudy would have joined together with two other people that they barely knew in an endeavor that would most likely lead to spending a large portion of their lives in prison. None of these 3 people could possibly trust the others well enough. Then you add in their backgrounds and that there is no record of texts, calls or emails between Rudy and the finally exonerated pair. Even if Raffaele felt he could trust Amanda, there would be no way that he would have trusted Rudy who helse did other know at all. I find these circumstances prove that it would be astronomically unlikely that these three "together" could have committed this crime.

I don't see how anyone would ignore this without overwhelming and conclusive evidence. And contrary to Vixen's claims, this doesn't exist.

 

[Numbers]

If the tapes emerged, they would instantly resolve all aspects of the case before the ECHR in a manner which would likely quicken Amanda's annulment of her guilty verdict. Additionally, they would resolve the further actions both criminal and civil against her, quiet Lumumba's grandstanding for good and provide the moral victory, doubtless Amanda would welcome alongside her legal victory.

I think Grinder is probably right about their commercial value; interestingly, when the ECHR communicates the case to Italy, it will probably respond with some sort of defence. Amanda's attorney will then weigh in again. I feel sure that the question of the availability of records related to the interrogations will arise in this correspondence. The Italian agents at the ECHR may well be tasked by the court to obtain what records might exist - tapes or the contemporaneous notes that we know from testimony were made. Indeed, the Italian justice minister could well end up demanding the release of any available records or a statement that they do not exist. If no records are forthcoming then Amanda's position is strengthened. The Italians are really stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Those who have read ECHR case-law in these cases of an allegedly unrecorded interrogation, which interrogation is claimed to be coercive by the subject, who was not provided with a lawyer or even a fair interpreter, and not warned of her right to remain silent, and which interrogation produced a false statement soon retracted by the subject but used to convict her, will anticipate what the ECHR judgment in this case will be.

 

[acbytesla]

Those who have read ECHR case-law in these cases of an allegedly unrecorded interrogation, which interrogation is claimed to be coercive by the subject, who was not provided with a lawyer or even a fair interpreter, and not warned of her right to remain silent, and which interrogation produced a false statement soon retracted by the subject but used to convict her, will anticipate what the ECHR judgment in this case will be.

Hmm mm mm mm,,,,,..... let me think....

 

[Ken Dine]

[ ]

There is the computer evidence and the digestion evidence and the very unlikely idea that Amanda or Raffaele or even Rudy would have joined together with two other people that they barely knew in an endeavor that would most likely lead to spending a large portion of their lives in prison. None of these 3 people could possibly trust the others well enough. Then you add in theIraq backgrounds and that there is no record of texts, calls or emails between Rudy and the finally exonerated pair. Even if Raffaele felt he could trust Amanda, there would be no way that he would have trusted Rudy who helse did other know at all. I find these circumstances prove that it would be astronomically unlikely that these three "together" could have committed this crime.

I don't see how anyone would ignore this without overwhelming and conclusive evidence. And contrary to Vixen's claims, this doesn't exist.

While I realize there's so much exculpatory evidence (which survived despite police shenanigans to bury it), that it would be impossible to mention it all in one posting. Even so, IMO one of the most compelling exculpatory bits of evidence you didn't mention would be that the police had reviewed multiple CCTV footage from that night, and not one camera had captured Raffaele & Amanda lurking about the cottage (as the CCTV footage had captured Guede lurking about multiple times), and not one security cam between Raffaele's apartment and the cottage had captured Raffaele & Amanda walking in the direction of the cottage that night, nor even out and about that night.

Perhaps, they rode Amanda's broom to the cottage that night and evaded all those cameras that way?

The big evidence presented by the police is that both Raffaele & Amanda had turned their phones off around the same time that evening. They also ate a pizza.

Then, there's the fact that the police never found traces of Meredith's blood on any article of Raffaele & Amanda's clothing (or on any of Raffaele's knives), and blood evidence is very difficult to fully remove, and you wouldn't expect kids like Raffaele & Amanda to know how to fully remove blood from their clothing or shoes. Raffaele & Amanda also didn't research how to do that online.

There's also zero electronic evidence that Raffaele and/or Amanda had ever communicated with Guede, nor any eye-witness accounts of Raffaele & Amanda ever directly talking with Guede.

It's OK to suspect people early on, but based upon the evidence, Raffaele & Amanda never should have been prosecuted.

 

[davefoc]

Exactly, all of this is nit picking. Amanda and Raffaele are innocent, regardless of what the crazies might say. There are some minor details that might be wrong, but the point is that they are minor.
...

I agree it is nitpicking and only peripherally related to any significant issues of the case, but I thought I would try to make sure I understand the discussion.

Overall issue
Did the police intend to question Knox on the evening of the 5th regardless of what Sollecito said during his interrogation?

Did Giobbi lie or misrepresent his role when he testified that he ordered Knox to be brought in for questioning?

Was the intense interrogation on the evening of the fifth and morning of the sixth precipitated by a police concern that when Knox's mother arrived Knox would get a lawyer?

Was the intense interrogation precipitated by a a police concern that when Knox's mother arrived she would arrange to get Knox out of Italy?

My opinions based on the arguments that have been put forth in this thread:
1. It seems at least very likely they did based on the arguments that have been summarized in Ken Dine's posts on this topic.
2. It seems likely to me that he did make such an order but the circumstances played out so that the order was complied with through circumstance rather than action.
3 & 4. It seems plausible that the police interrogation was initiated earlier than it might have been if Knox's mother had not been known to be coming to Italy because of a concern that Knox's mother might help Knox in various ways. Absent that fact, it seems reasonable to imagine that the police might have delayed any interrogation until they had real evidence against Knox and Sollecito.

 

[Bill Williams]

If the tapes emerged, they would instantly resolve all aspects of the case before the ECHR in a manner which would likely quicken Amanda's annulment of her guilty verdict. Additionally, they would resolve the further actions both criminal and civil against her, quiet Lumumba's grandstanding for good and provide the moral victory, doubtless Amanda would welcome alongside her legal victory.

I think Grinder is probably right about their commercial value; interestingly, when the ECHR communicates the case to Italy, it will probably respond with some sort of defence. Amanda's attorney will then weigh in again. I feel sure that the question of the availability of records related to the interrogations will arise in this correspondence. The Italian agents at the ECHR may well be tasked by the court to obtain what records might exist - tapes or the contemporaneous notes that we know from testimony were made. Indeed, the Italian justice minister could well end up demanding the release of any available records or a statement that they do not exist. If no records are forthcoming then Amanda's position is strengthened. The Italians are really stuck between a rock and a hard place.

I'm not sure I understand the ins and outs of ECHR as discussed here, but if the point is that the tapes' existence would only galvanize the ECHR case that is already readily apparent, then IMO you are making my point. Perhaps better than I made it.

My view is that it's only when innocence is in question does it become crucial to posess those tapes. Once innocence has been established and the two exonerated, then they become of interest mainly to mitpickers, of which all of us are capable of becoming.

But once the two are exonerated it's no longer a nit pick which is crucial or perhaps even interesting.

That's why I asked the question as modified. How does their potential release influence negatively an exoneration? I don't know now which is worse.... imagine at this point the PLE admitting they had them all along. Ooooops, we found them in a drawer!

 

[davefoc]

...
Then, there's the fact that the police never found traces of Meredith's blood on any article of Raffaele & Amanda's clothing (or on any of Raffaele's knives), and blood evidence is very difficult to fully remove, and you wouldn't expect kids like Raffaele & Amanda to know how to fully remove blood from their clothing or shoes. Raffaele & Amanda also didn't research how to do that online.

...

Everything in your post seemed correct to me. The section that I quoted has to do with the lack of blood on the clothes. I agree, it seems very unlikely that AK/RS could have cleaned their clothes to the point that there would have not been evidence of blood or at least cleaning attempts out of the ordinary. There are two other possible guilt explanations that I see:
1. They participated in the crime but not directly in the murder.
2. They threw their bloody clothes away.

The first is a particularly nasty theory in my opinion because it involves making up a theory of the case out of whole cloth. Something like we know they are guilty but we just can't prove what they actually did. As dubious as this sounds, I think it is the idea that underlies a lot of the pro guilt arguments. The reason that Vixen won't put forth a theory of what happened during the crime is because there is no evidence to support any theory as to what AK/RS actually did with respect to the crime they were alleged to have committed.

The second seems to border on implausible. They needed to get a completely fresh set of clothes and shoes, get the bloody clothes and shoes into trash bags to prevent further transfer of the blood, shower some place to completely remove the blood from themselves, put on their fresh set of clothes, go to a place where they could discard the trash bag with the bloody clothes and shoes where it couldn't be found, discard the trash bag and return to Sollecito's apartment without being noticed by witnesses or security cameras. They also needed to make sure the clothes they discarded couldn't be identified as missing and they needed to accomplish all this without leaving any evidence of their actions with regard to this anyplace.

 

[Strozzi]

According to the Record of the Execution of Arrest form, there were 7 (seven) police, including Giobbi, who assisted in bringing in that allegedly dangerous criminal, Amanda Knox, from the SCO in Rome.

7 police investigators from Rome! 6 of them were redundant since it seems Giobbi did most of the work. He applied his powers of discernment and determined that this American girl wiggled just right and likes pizza so she is the murderer. "Hold up on that downstairs lab work, Dr. Stefanoni. Cancel the test on the semen sample. I don't need it. I already solved the crime."

What did the other 6 Rome police do to earn the taxpayers' Euro?

• They didn't find the knife along the path Rudi walked from the cottage to Lana's garden and beyond.
• They didn't interview residents in Nara's building.
• They didn't collect and preserve store videos along the street from Raffaele's flat to Amanda's cottage.
• They didn't determine if an athletic man could climb up and in Filomena's window.
• They didn't discover Curatolo or Nara or verify the acoustics of her building.
• They didn't discover that the discos were closed and the disco buses were not running on the night of the Day of the Dead.
• They didn't discover Quintovalle or find his bleach sales receipt.
• They didn't connect the rock through Filomena's window to other recent burglaries that involved a rock.
• They didn't verify that le Chic was in fact open on the night of Nov. 1
• They didn't investigate the local police who assaulted Amanda.

 

[acbytesla]

While I realize there's so much exculpatory evidence (which survived despite police shenanigans to bury it), that it would be impossible to mention it all in one posting. Even so, IMO one of the most compelling exculpatory bits of evidence you didn't mention would be that the police had reviewed multiple CCTV footage from that night, and not one camera had captured Raffaele & Amanda lurking about the cottage (as the CCTV footage had captured Guede lurking about multiple times), and not one security cam between Raffaele's apartment and the cottage had captured Raffaele & Amanda walking in the direction of the cottage that night, nor even out and about that night.

Perhaps, they rode Amanda's broom to the cottage that night and evaded all those cameras that way?

The big evidence presented by the police is that both Raffaele & Amanda had turned their phones off around the same time that evening. They also ate a pizza.

Then, there's the fact that the police never found traces of Meredith's blood on any article of Raffaele & Amanda's clothing (or on any of Raffaele's knives), and blood evidence is very difficult to fully remove, and you wouldn't expect kids like Raffaele & Amanda to know how to fully remove blood from their clothing or shoes. Raffaele & Amanda also didn't research how to do that online.

There's also zero electronic evidence that Raffaele and/or Amanda had ever communicated with Guede, nor any eye-witness accounts of Raffaele & Amanda ever directly talking with Guede.

It's OK to suspect people early on, but based upon the evidence, Raffaele & Amanda never should have been prosecuted.

No, it shouldn't.

I agree with Vixen when she says most murders are done by someone they know. The only response to that...not meaning to mock her but, "obviously". People we know have motives. They are spouses, employees, fathers, sons, brothers, and rarely but sometimes daughters, sisters and mothers. They kill out of a fiery anger that only someone they are close to can fuel. Or they kill for financial gain. And even though Amanda and Meredith knew each other and we're growing closer, there is no deep emotional bonds that would cause the kind of anger that would lead her to kill. And there is even less reason (if that is possible) for Raffaele. This is why Massei, not being able to come up with a reason and acknowledging the high character of Amanda and Raffaele said it was some momentary choice of evil.

And in this case, not only would 2 people without any motive or reason to kill, they have them killing get with basically a total stranger. It makes as much sense as Giselle Bundchen dropping Tom Brady for me. Both ideas are total fantasies. Possible...but not bloody likely.

 

[Strozzi]

Ok, I admit it. I did not provide the modifier I should have.

Please let me try again: "Can you make a case for why those tapes would even be interesting at this point in time, in terms of the pairs' guilt or innocence?"

You also forget my own atonement many months ago, when I admitted that my three sources for this, were probably only one source to begin with. This was because two of the sources had as their source my first source - which in the genetics of the thing makes it still a single source.

But I'll not dig out where I admitted I was wrong and presented my claim with undue glee. You already gloated over that one, so I'' have only the satisfaction of you ferreting it out so you can gloat anew....

The point being, post-exoneration those tapes prove nothing, really that we don't already know. Both Amanda and Raffaele have given first hand accounts of their own respective interrogations, and if the tapes existed they'd only be trotted out to disprove Raffaele and Amanda. Yet, what would even disproving (at this point) Raffaele and Amanda accomplish?

Which brings me back to my question: "Can you make a case for why those tapes would even be interesting at this point in time?" And by that I do not mean that it would be of prurient interest in a US news show (for about a day). Or that it might make someone some money.

Can we at least answer the question before bringing up something I've already admitted to?

• The interrogation tape would be evidence in the ongoing appeal of Amanda's conviction for calunia now before the ECHR.
• It might also be evidence in a claim in Italy for compensation for wrongful conviction.
• It might be evidence Raffaele could use in defending himself against Mignini's lawsuit.
• It might be evidence Amanda's parents could use in defending themselves against the calunia suit against them for saying Amanda was struck by the police.
• It might be evidence Amanda could use in defending herself against Lumumba's lawsuit against her for civil damages.

 

[Strozzi]

. . .

And in this case, not only would 2 people without any motive or reason to kill, they have them killing get with basically a total stranger. It makes as much sense as Giselle Bundchen dropping Tom Brady for me. Both ideas are total fantasies. Possible...but not bloody likely.

Acbytesla, Giselle Bundchen just called me. She wants your number. But I gave her Grinder's by mistake.

 

[Dougm]

And in this case, not only would 2 people without any motive or reason to kill, they have them killing get with basically a total stranger. It makes as much sense as Giselle Bundchen dropping Tom Brady for me. Both ideas are total fantasies. Possible...but not bloody likely.

At least you don't deflate footballs. Maybe she is tired of that kind of thing.

 

[acbytesla]

Acbytesla, Giselle Bundchen just called me. She wants your number. But I gave her Grinder's by mistake.

Damn you. You handed my one in a trillion chance to Grinder?

 

[Bill Williams]

• The interrogation tape would be evidence in the ongoing appeal of Amanda's conviction for calunia now before the ECHR.
• It might also be evidence in a claim in Italy for compensation for wrongful conviction.
• It might be evidence Raffaele could use in defending himself against Mignini's lawsuit.
• It might be evidence Amanda's parents could use in defending themselves against the calunia suit against them for saying Amanda was struck by the police.
• It might be evidence Amanda could use in defending herself against Lumumba's lawsuit against her for civil damages.

But how would a presumed existing interrogation tape, regardless of what was on it, reverse a finding of complete innocence? (If it did that, Mignini would have accidentally foubd the key to the drawer in his desk on March 28th.)

 

[Strozzi]

But how would a presumed existing interrogation tape, regardless of what was on it, reverse a finding of complete innocence? (If it did that, Mignini would have accidentally foubd the key to the drawer in his desk on March 28th.)

Don't ask me. Ask Vixen. I'm sure she can explain it.

 

[Numbers]

7 police investigators from Rome! 6 of them were redundant since it seems Giobbi did most of the work. He applied his powers of discernment and determined that this American girl wiggled just right and likes pizza so she is the murderer. "Hold up on that downstairs lab work, Dr. Stefanoni. Cancel the test on the semen sample. I don't need it. I already solved the crime."

What did the other 6 Rome police do to earn the taxpayers' Euro?

• They didn't find the knife along the path Rudi walked from the cottage to Lana's garden and beyond.
• They didn't interview residents in Nara's building.
• They didn't collect and preserve store videos along the street from Raffaele's flat to Amanda's cottage.
• They didn't determine if an athletic man could climb up and in Filomena's window.
• They didn't discover Curatolo or Nara or verify the acoustics of her building.
• They didn't discover that the discos were closed and the disco buses were not running on the night of the Day of the Dead.
• They didn't discover Quintovalle or find his bleach sales receipt.
• They didn't connect the rock through Filomena's window to other recent burglaries that involved a rock.
• They didn't verify that le Chic was in fact open on the night of Nov. 1
• They didn't investigate the local police who assaulted Amanda.

Have you considered that the 7 cops from Rome just wanted to get out of Perugia and back to Rome ASAP, no matter what person, innocent or guilty, they had to arrest to "close the case"?

 

[Strozzi]

Have you considered that the 7 cops from Rome just wanted to get out of Perugia and back to Rome ASAP, no matter what person, innocent or guilty, they had to arrest to "close the case"?

I doubt that. They were on per diem.

Seriously, sending 7 Rome investigators to Perugia shows how concerned their ministry in Rome was about solving this case. The police were under pressure to solve it quickly. Perugia Police Chief de Felice stated this in his Nov 6 press conference where he presented the perps to the media.

 

[Grinder]

The Gibbs reference is the result of the auto correct on this Samsung tablet...but I like it

Your argument that I'm just being selective is nonsense. I'm not misrepresenting the facts. Are you saying that Giobbi didn't say he ordered both of them to be picked up? No, you are saying he's lying because this isn't the official story from the Perugian authorities. Maybe you're right. Maybe this is just puffery. But you could just as easily be wrong. I do think it's telling however that they had that many detectives working that evening.

On one side we have an egomaniac that thinks he solved the case by watching a dance wearing shoe covers and observing eating habits before the forensic came back making another claim of how he was Sherlocko by calling them both in at the same time.

On the other side of the leadger we have the other cops saying no they weren't called in, Raf and Amanda saying they weren't called in, Amanda saying the cops were pissed she came in and Raf telling us the reasons for his being called in.

If Giobbi's claim didn't fit your scenario of the framing misconduct against the kids and mama arriving you wouldn't believe it for a second.

So we’re at the evening of the 5th, then the night between the 5th and the 6th. To us it appears from other points of the investigation, also from the witness [evidence], that on that evening, around 21:30 only Sollecito had been called to the Questura. You, on the contrary, said that they were both made to be questioned/heard together.
EG:
No, I remember having said that they were called together on purpose.
LG:
You, but [sic] to us it appears from the testimony of your colleagues that only Amanda was called, and Raffaele Sollecito insisted on coming.
EG:
I gave direct orders to the investigators to take them. I, look, I remember it very well, because it was the first time that we carried out a sort [sic], of doing two SIT [recaps/summaries] in a simultaneous manner, and I said go get them. I seems to me they were in a pizzeria. I can tell you mathematical certainty. I remember perfectly well having arranged a technical tactic.
LG:
You took the question out of my mouth, that of hearing/questioning them together was a choice.

Do you also think they were in a pizzeria?

There was obviously controversy about whether they were both called in. Do you think that when Giobbi said with mathematical certainty that sounds filled with puffery and a cover for a lie?

Don't you find it odd that when pressed rather than saying I told so and so to bring them both in, he said tut tut I know with mathematical certainty.

I think it's pretty clear Amanda's defense didn't believe him.

 

[Grinder]

Ok, I admit it. I did not provide the modifier I should have.

Please let me try again: "Can you make a case for why those tapes would even be interesting at this point in time, in terms of the pairs' guilt or innocence?"

You also forget my own atonement many months ago, when I admitted that my three sources for this, were probably only one source to begin with. This was because two of the sources had as their source my first source - which in the genetics of the thing makes it still a single source.

But I'll not dig out where I admitted I was wrong and presented my claim with undue glee. You already gloated over that one, so I'' have only the satisfaction of you ferreting it out so you can gloat anew....

The point being, post-exoneration those tapes prove nothing, really that we don't already know. Both Amanda and Raffaele have given first hand accounts of their own respective interrogations, and if the tapes existed they'd only be trotted out to disprove Raffaele and Amanda. Yet, what would even disproving (at this point) Raffaele and Amanda accomplish?

Which brings me back to my question: "Can you make a case for why those tapes would even be interesting at this point in time?" And by that I do not mean that it would be of prurient interest in a US news show (for about a day). Or that it might make someone some money.

Can we at least answer the question before bringing up something I've already admitted to?

Are you serious. First of all those that still believe in guilt would be knocked out of their socks. The entire aura of she blamed a black man would be taken off her back. All those that have maintained that Italy is totally effed up would be shown to be right.

Hell if Mignini et al. had seen that tape and continued with this case it would demonstrate how evil they were.

This case for those that aren't in the camp is much than about how the courts finally ruled.

Btw, you have never named your sources and I think you should. One of them at least IMO has provided other factoids and it would elevate the convo here to know who they are. By believe is that when one makes a claim whether that the recordings exist or that Guede started a fire source material should be provided.