Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kauffer]

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.)

It wouldn't affect the acquittal for murder, but it would affect the conviction - for calunnia - together with all of the remaining cases. It would be determining evidence in the pending criminal case against Amanda, if the assault on her in the questura is recorded.

Italy would be unable to mount any defence at the ECHR.

 

[Grinder]

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.)

Well if the tape showed a calm and unthreatened Amanda coming up with Patrick on her own many if not most would reassess.

Btw - why do you keep pushing the point of "complete innocence". There seems to be some doubt as to that and maybe waiting for the motivations would be prudent. It seems to me that using it over and over is a bit of cheer-leading.

 

[Numbers]

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.

And in your quote, LG (Ghirga?) states that only Amanda was called according to his colleagues, and Raffaele came along?

Which conspiracy theory would you like to associate with LG's question?

 

[Bill Williams]

First of all those that still believe in guilt would be knocked out of their socks.

They've never been in their socks.

The entire aura of she blamed a black man would be taken off her back.

There's never been any credibility to that anyway. The only one clinging to that "aura" clung to it because they knew they had nothing else, or they were just trying to slime Knox for the sake of sliming her.

All those that have maintained that Italy is totally effed up would be shown to be right.

As opposed to..........???? You mean thay haven't been shown to have effed up?

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

You need the tape for that? What about that no one in Italy, with the possible exception of Machiavelli, defends Mignini at this point?

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

Which "camp"? Who cares about random, baseless slanderers?

Btw, you have never named your sources and I think you should.

I know, you've said.

 

[acbytesla]

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.

I have little doubt that many of the cops lied during this investigation. I just am not sure who is lying at what time. Is Giobbi lying when he said he heard Amanda screaming? Something Raffaele said too. But what other officers also said that they heard Amanda screaming?

Not that this matters all that much, but why did they have so many detectives working that evening if they hadn't intended to interview Amanda? That is why I believe Giobbi. It's not what the other said, it is the peripheral evidence.

 

[Bill Williams]

Well if the tape showed a calm and unthreatened Amanda coming up with Patrick on her own many if not most would reassess.

Is there any reasonable chance that would be on such a tape? If that tape existed and that's what it showed, it would have been in the very first courtroom.

Btw - why do you keep pushing the point of "complete innocence". There seems to be some doubt as to that and maybe waiting for the motivations would be prudent. It seems to me that using it over and over is a bit of cheer-leading.

I do know that you regard anything like that as cheerleading. I regard it as saying the obvious. Your mileage obviously varies.

 

[Grinder]

And in your quote, LG (Ghirga?) states that only Amanda was called according to his colleagues, and Raffaele came along?

Which conspiracy theory would you like to associate with LG's question?

Either the PGP people made an error or LG misspoke in his cross. Since he said just opposite two lines above.

I saw it and could have fixed it for him

But if you weren't just being snarky then you should contact Amanda or one of the FOA here and make sure she corrects the Kiddle versions of her book...Raf's too.

 

[Numbers]

Either the PGP people made an error or LG misspoke in his cross. Since he said just opposite two lines above.

I saw it and could have fixed it for him

But if you weren't just being snarky then you should contact Amanda or one of the FOA here and make sure she corrects the Kiddle versions of her book...Raf's too.

Maybe both versions are true.

But I believe that Amanda and Raffaele are more accurate than anyone else, because, as you would put it, I am an FOA or maybe an FOAR.

But again, there is nothing about the planned interrogation that Giobbi states that is not corroborated by the events of the interrogation itself. However, the details of the planning, if any, are not important; it's the violations of Convention rights that matter to the ECHR.

 

[Grinder]

Maybe both versions are true.

But I believe that Amanda and Raffaele are more accurate than anyone else, because, as you would put it, I am an FOA or maybe an FOAR.

But again, there is nothing about the planned interrogation that Giobbi states that is not corroborated by the events of the interrogation itself. However, the details of the planning, if any, are not important; it's the violations of Convention rights that matter to the ECHR.

Err I suggested you contact a FOA not talk to yourself.

It is the case for you that the ECHR is the only thing of importance.

I asked you for any examples of the ECHR going against the PLE and I add specifically any of our players Mignini, Nappy, Giobbi et al. How's that search going?

 

[Bill Williams]

Maybe both versions are true.

But I believe that Amanda and Raffaele are more accurate than anyone else, because, as you would put it, I am an FOA or maybe an FOAR.

But again, there is nothing about the planned interrogation that Giobbi states that is not corroborated by the events of the interrogation itself. However, the details of the planning, if any, are not important; it's the violations of Convention rights that matter to the ECHR.

Apparently telling the truth makes one a cheerleader. Thinking that the evidence has only one legit conclusion makes one biased.

Pass the pom-poms.

 

[Numbers]

Err I suggested you contact a FOA not talk to yourself.

It is the case for you that the ECHR is the only thing of importance.

I asked you for any examples of the ECHR going against the PLE and I add specifically any of our players Mignini, Nappy, Giobbi et al. How's that search going?

Grinder,

Not that I ignored your request, but I conduct my searches of HUDOC, the ECHR case database, according to its allowed fields and my interest in specific precedents.

Cities, specific law enforcement agencies, and specific individuals such as prosecutors, police officers, and witnesses or co-defendants (not applicants) are generally not important to ECHR cases in terms of specific identification. Cities, police forces, and courts will be named, but the applicant and the State (such as Italy) are the two contestants in the case. The various individuals, not the applicant, will generally be designated by a letter (initial) rather than by name. For example, Mignini might be indicated as prosecutor M, Giobbi as Assistant Deputy Chief G.

Anyone is free to search HUDOC as they wish; I do not need to be your intermediary.

 

[Grinder]

Grinder,

Not that I ignored your request, but I conduct my searches of HUDOC, the ECHR case database, according to its allowed fields and my interest in specific precedents.

Cities, specific law enforcement agencies, and specific individuals such as prosecutors, police officers, and witnesses or co-defendants (not applicants) are generally not important to ECHR cases in terms of specific identification. Cities, police forces, and courts will be named, but the applicant and the State (such as Italy) are the two contestants in the case. The various individuals, not the applicant, will generally be designated by a letter (initial) rather than by name. For example, Mignini might be indicated as prosecutor M, Giobbi as Assistant Deputy Chief G.

Anyone is free to search HUDOC as they wish; I do not need to be your intermediary.

Now I can see why you think Giobbi ordered them both picked up if you think didn't ignore my request.

While violations against people of the Ukraine are fascinating it would be interesting to find out if the people we are dealing with have a track history of violations that are similar.

I asked because you seem very adept at it and have a great interest in the ECHR, much greater than mine.

 

[Grinder]

Apparently telling the truth makes one a cheerleader. Thinking that the evidence has only one legit conclusion makes one biased.

Pass the pom-poms.

When one is deep in the hole of any confirmation bias one should stop digging.

Numbers doesn't strike me as biased and does some very interesting work without hyperbole or sloganeering.

As an example your use of the "innocents" instead of their names or kids puts a spin on before the first pitch. Most recently you actually questioned the release of recordings value since they had been found completely innocent on March 27th. Your seemingly only concern or interest was them being found not guilty (not sure if in fact it is found innocent and will wait for the full report) whereas I'm still interested in much more.

Just curious. Was it the truth that the recording would be made public years ago? Personally I doubt that there were sources but...

 

[Bill Williams]

When one is deep in the hole of any confirmation bias one should stop digging.

Numbers doesn't strike me as biased and does some very interesting work without hyperbole or sloganeering.

As an example your use of the "innocents" instead of their names or kids puts a spin on before the first pitch. Most recently you actually questioned the release of recordings value since they had been found completely innocent on March 27th. Your seemingly only concern or interest was them being found not guilty (not sure if in fact it is found innocent and will wait for the full report) whereas I'm still interested in much more.

Just curious. Was it the truth that the recording would be made public years ago? Personally I doubt that there were sources but...

Strangely all this is my point. Numbers, in fact is biased. He investigates that bias and nails it down. So it would be nice if you address the point as I raised it rather than substituting what is your own confirmation bias.

Note - I'm not saying it is wrong or not factual. It's just that we've been around this block a dozen times since first bumping into each other here. You've accused me of similar a dozen times, and I fundamentally don't get it. My point remains the same. Why is it undue bias to call it the way I see it? Did March 27 not happen? Why address the poster and not the point?

I concede that you regard it as "hyperbole or sloganeering." I do not. I concede that you regard the early FOA comments (before my time) as posturing, rather than trying to sort out the truth when information which did not originate from the prosecution in Perugia was at a premium.

I fundamentally do not understand this approach. Where I come out is that this case is, in essence, over. Truth eventually won out. I suppose it is now "hyperbole" to say ANYTHING positive about March 27!

 

[Bill Williams]

When one is deep in the hole of any confirmation bias one should stop digging.

Numbers doesn't strike me as biased and does some very interesting work without hyperbole or sloganeering.

As an example your use of the "innocents" instead of their names or kids puts a spin on before the first pitch. Most recently you actually questioned the release of recordings value since they had been found completely innocent on March 27th. Your seemingly only concern or interest was them being found not guilty (not sure if in fact it is found innocent and will wait for the full report) whereas I'm still interested in much more.

Just curious. Was it the truth that the recording would be made public years ago? Personally I doubt that there were sources but...

Take this for instance. Please describe how this is not accurate? Is it not "spin" in and of itself to try to somehow shave off a wee bit of credibility..... which I say to you, because (unless I have missed something) you, too, regard them as innocent. In what way would you not start a sentence with, "the innocents......"? Or are you claming that they've only been found judicially innocent and the truth might be somewhere else?

Is it not true that you regard them as stone-cold innocent, and implying anything less is the result of error? So it is that I don't "get" someone who is a solid innocentisti regarding a statement of fact as spin?

 

[acbytesla]

When one is deep in the hole of any confirmation bias one should stop digging.

Numbers doesn't strike me as biased and does some very interesting work without hyperbole or sloganeering.

As an example your use of the "innocents" instead of their names or kids puts a spin on before the first pitch. Most recently you actually questioned the release of recordings value since they had been found completely innocent on March 27th. Your seemingly only concern or interest was them being found not guilty (not sure if in fact it is found innocent and will wait for the full report) whereas I'm still interested in much more.

Just curious. Was it the truth that the recording would be made public years ago? Personally I doubt that there were sources but...

I'm a cheerleader for innocence. I tried for a while to keep an open mind about whether they were innocent or guilty. Mostly because understanding the DNA evidence was not easy.

But at the beginning it was sifting through the factoids I'd read from both sides trying to get at the truth. It was worse than listening to politicians. Eventually a consistent pattern started to form. And that was much of what I heard from the PGP wasn't true or was equivocal.

Also, the PGP seemed to just want to talk about Amanda's sex life or her hygiene. "Amanda was a dirty slut" they said. Personally I could have cared less about whether Amanda was getting any. I certainly didn't think it had anything to do with Meredith's murder. The idea that this killing was a sex orgy gone awry was about the dumbest thing I have ever heard...maybe right behind the idea that it was a satanic ritual.

I made up my mind when I started getting a grasp on the dates. When Amanda first met Meredith. When and how she met Rudy and then when she met Raffaele. She met Meredith for the first time 43 days before the murder. I think she met Rudy 12 days earlier, and Raffaele 9 days earlier.

People like Vixen will say, this is irrelevant. I think that is stupid and ignorant. These people didn't know each other. Why would they kill? And more importantly in my mind, why would the kill with 2 people that they had met less than 2 weeks earlier? My guess is that Vixen will say she was drugged out But of course there is nothing that backs this up. No positive drug tests. Not a credible source anywhere that could say that either Amanda or Raffaele had ever taken anything harder than cannabis.

The only piece of evidence that ever made me pause was Raffaele's DNA was supposedly found on Meredith's bra clasp. I never bought that the cooking knife had anything to do with the murder. But the actions of Stefanoni and the prosecution was abominable. Stefanoni refusing to provide the electronic files. Her testimony as it regards to the Luminol was dishonest.

Eventually if you have half a brain you realize that this was a farce.

 

[Bill Williams]

I'm a cheerleader for innocence. I tried for a while to keep an open mind about whether they were innocent or guilty. Mostly because understanding the DNA evidence was not easy.

But at the beginning it was sifting through the factoids I'd read from both sides trying to get at the truth. It was worse than listening to politicians. Eventually a consistent pattern started to form. And that was much of what I heard from the PGP wasn't true or was equivocal.

<..........sinister deletia..........>​

Eventually if you have half a brain you realize that this was a farce.

I'm in this direction. What I'm struggling with is that describing them as innocents, is seen as wrong if done, "right out of the gate."

It is now 3 1/2 months PAST the exonerations. Final, irrevocable acquittals. Which part of that is "out of the gate"?

This thread started by me giving an opinion that at this point the existence of interrogation-tapes was perhaps irrelevant. At least two (maybe three) said, well not irrelevant - they very well could have an impact on remaining court-dates on peripheral issues; as well as cementing a calunnia reveral at ECHR which will probably happen anyway.

Then I amended the point - the existence or non-existence of those tapes is irrelevant to the main issue, guilt or innocent of murder. That one is case closed, tapes or no tapes. Maresca says so, one of the Hate-sites has closed, another has a mod who's warned his posters to be mindful of the new legal reality before slagging AK and/or RS.

I don't get it. Why would describing these two kids as innocents be seen as prejudicing remarks, or a sign of confirmation bias "from the start"? We are nowhere near the start. We are 3 1/2 months past the finish.

 

[acbytesla]

I'm in this direction. What I'm struggling with is that describing them as innocents, is seen as wrong if done, "right out of the gate."

It is now 3 1/2 months PAST the exonerations. Final, irrevocable acquittals. Which part of that is "out of the gate"?

This thread started by me giving an opinion that at this point the existence of interrogation-tapes was perhaps irrelevant. At least two (maybe three) said, well not irrelevant - they very well could have an impact on remaining court-dates on peripheral issues; as well as cementing a calunnia reveral at ECHR which will probably happen anyway.

Then I amended the point - the existence or non-existence of those tapes is irrelevant to the main issue, guilt or innocent of murder. That one is case closed, tapes or no tapes. Maresca says so, one of the Hate-sites has closed, another has a mod who's warned his posters to be mindful of the new legal reality before slagging AK and/or RS.

I don't get it. Why would describing these two kids as innocents be seen as prejudicing remarks, or a sign of confirmation bias "from the start"? We are nowhere near the start. We are 3 1/2 months past the finish.

I'm with you. But I've been so convinced of their innocence for a a very long time as I know you have been. They are innocent. What's wrong with saying that?

I don't want to repeat anything that is not true. That destroys my credibility. That isn't to say I haven't. I know I have. But not on purpose and once I knew something was false, I didn't continue to repeat it. A lesson I wish Vixen would learn.

 

[Numbers]

Now I can see why you think Giobbi ordered them both picked up if you think didn't ignore my request.

While violations against people of the Ukraine are fascinating it would be interesting to find out if the people we are dealing with have a track history of violations that are similar.

I asked because you seem very adept at it and have a great interest in the ECHR, much greater than mine.

In light of your statement, I will revise my earlier statement: I didn't maliciously ignore your request.

Giobbi's statement is important objectively. He states in his testimony that a top Italian police official (namely himself) planned an interrogation of two persons, using special techniques. No big deal by itself --- except this suggests: 1) AK and RS were already suspects before the interrogations began; 2) The special techniques apparently included the police failing to notify AK and RS that they were suspects, failing to provide lawyers to them or telling them they should bring lawyers to the interrogation; 3) also failing to tell AK & RS of the right to remain silent. Because there is no dispute that all of these procedural violations occurred, except possibly Mignini and the Perugian police and guilters seem to dispute (1).

That is what the argument is about - not Giobbi's alleged puffery, but rather that some (guilters) believe that if AK & RS were questioned as witnesses rather than as suspects, the procedural protections would not apply to them. Giobbi's testimony eliminates the "witness" defense of Italy before the ECHR.

However, those advocating this "witness" defense apparently do not realize that ECHR case-law, in Brusco v France 1466/07, eliminated the possibility of that defense. A witness who is interrogated as though a suspect - meaning (I suggest) that the questioning is directed at obtaining an incriminating statement - does not provide a way to abolish the procedural safeguards. In fact, Brusco v France established that it is a violation of the Convention to question a suspect pretending that the suspect is a witness.

So there's a long-winded explanation of why Giobbi's testimony about ordering them both picked up, whether puffery or absolute truth, is significant.

 

[Bill Williams]

I'm with you. But I've been so convinced of their innocence for a a very long time as I know you have been. They are innocent. What's wrong with saying that?

I don't want to repeat anything that is not true. That destroys my credibility. That isn't to say I haven't. I know I have. But not on purpose and once I knew something was false, I didn't continue to repeat it. A lesson I wish Vixen would learn.

Does anyone particularly care who is and who isn't confirmation biased at this point? This point being not exactly "right out of the gate"?

Heck those people who were confirmation biased towards innocence the first week of November 2007 are now, 7 2/3 years later, looking like the Oracle at Delphi!