Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[zotz]

LMAO. What evidence? Please, what evidence? Saying things doesn't make it so Vixen. It takes more than hot air. Give me some real evidence that proves their guilt and I'll bring the rope.

It doesn't exist. What you have are cops saying there were multiple perps involved or that the burglary was staged or the bath mat print belonged to Raffaele. But they sure as hell didn't come close to proving any of those things. In fact the evidence is incredibly equivocal. I'm of the show me school.

I also think it is dumbest idea imaginable that Raffaele would just join in and help a girl murder her roommate. Why? For the sex? This kid is a very smart computer engineer. He thinks through everything. No way in hell.

It is not enough to say something is equivocal. You have to prove that Raf didn't want extreme manga sex with Meredith. You have to prove that the bathmat print isn't Raf's and that the footprints in the hall are not Amanda's and that they were not made in Meredith's blood. Can you prove that there was only one attacker?

Didn't think so! The kids are guilty! Period!

(I don't like the way you guys are ganging up on Vixen so I've decided to switch sides)

 

[Vixen]

Amanda had been acquitted of that crime. Nencini expressly used Guede's loony account as the basis for hostility between Kercher and Amanda actually on the night of the murder.

Since you stated that nothing Guede said was reliable, then you must think Nencini wrong.

Nencini bent over backwards for the kids, but couldn't fault the court of the first instance, who also gave the kids a soft ride.

 

[Vixen]

It is not enough to say something is equivocal. You have to prove that Raf didn't want extreme manga sex with Meredith. You have to prove that the bathmat print isn't Raf's and that the footprints in the hall are not Amanda's and that they were not made in Meredith's blood. Can you prove that there was only one attacker?

Didn't think so! The kids are guilty! Period!

(I don't like the way you guys are ganging up on Vixen so I've decided to switch sides)

Many a true word said in jest ~ Shakespeare

 

[Bill Williams]

Amanda had been acquitted of that crime. Nencini expressly used Guede's loony account as the basis for hostility between Kercher and Amanda actually on the night of the murder.

Since you stated that nothing Guede said was reliable, then you must think Nencini wrong.

Nencini bent over backwards for the kids, but couldn't fault the court of the first instance, who also gave the kids a soft ride.

Huh!?

Nencini convicted them partly on testimony Guede, and only Guede, gave to another court.

 

[Strozzi]

You are both entirely wrong. Andrew Hodges is a Canadian funeral director, with a well respected funeral home to his credit.

Andrew Hodges whom Vixen cites has an odd history. Respected biographer of the Bletchley Park code breaker, but also a crank crime detective and author, yet a respected funeral director. He also scored two touchdowns in a freshman high school game last fall in Ft. Lauderdale. He recently turned 15 and I am expecting more great things from Andrew this fall.

You don't think there is more than one person with that name? Who is the imposter posing as a serious crime writer?

 

[bagels]

If Rudy can lie so easily to Kokomani and to Giacomo Benedetti, I doubt we can give much weight to his various utterances. Co-criminals don't grass on each other, for obvious reasons.

But that's my point. Rudy, the most obvious suspect, with the criminal past, and a member of an underprivileged national and ethnic group, leaves all the primary evidence, so should it be surprising that he takes all the blame and the killer kids go free? And if Rudy doesn't like being the lone one in jail, he has the option to give reliable testimony or produce hard evidence implicating his conspirators. He didn't, for reasons you state. Thus here we are in 2015 with AK and RS forever free, and Rudy forever a convicted murderer of Meredith Kercher. This outcome seems not unexpected given the circumstances. You're acting like it's so odd that two privileged white people managed to get away with the crime while the poor black accomplice takes the rap.

I think future killers should take lessons from AK and RS and con poor clueless black criminals to come to their crime scenes and dig around in their victims genitals, walk around in their blood, hopelessly spin ridiculous tales of nonsense, and stage break-ins matching their previous crimes. It really is the perfect murder.

 

[zotz]

But that's my point. Rudy, the most obvious suspect, with the criminal past, and a member of an underprivileged national and ethnic group, leaves all the primary evidence, so should it be surprising that he takes all the blame and the killer kids go free? And if Rudy doesn't like being the lone one in jail, he has the option to give reliable testimony or produce hard evidence implicating his conspirators. He didn't, for reasons you state. Thus here we are in 2015 with AK and RS forever free, and Rudy forever a convicted murderer of Meredith Kercher. This outcome seems not unexpected given the circumstances. You're acting like it's so odd that two privileged white people managed to get away with the crime while the poor black accomplice takes the rap.

I think future killers should take lessons from AK and RS and con poor clueless black criminals to come to their crime scenes and dig around in their victims genitals, walk around in their blood, hopelessly spin ridiculous tales of nonsense, and stage break-ins matching their previous crimes. It really is the perfect murder.

Rudy got what he deserved. He lied to Koko! Amanda didn't want that knife to cut a cake and even if she did would she have given Koko a piece? I don't think so!

 

[Numbers]

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.

Let me add to or emphasize a point about the above post. Giobbi may be puffing up or lying about ordering the interrogation of both Amanda and Raffaele as suspects, but he is reporting about his own actions and intentions.

On the other hand, when he states, for example, that the blood downstairs was cat blood, this must be based on what others have told him; it is hearsay and inference. In fact, Stefanoni did not have any record of testing those downstairs blood stains for the species, and such an antigen-antibody test is possible. However, the samples of downstairs blood stains did produce DNA profiles, not identified in the available records supplied by the police, and this suggests either that the blood was human, or that there was human DNA on the substrates (surfaces) under the stains, because the PCR enzyme used for DNA replication in the test is primate-specific. Thus, Giobbi may well be lying or repeating misinformation about the downstairs blood.

But when it comes to the substance of his orders or his intentions to order, he may be considered the best source of such information. The only part of his statement that is apparently contradicted by other information is that Amanda was not specifically requested to come to the police station on Nov. 5, 2007. However, once she was in the station, she was, after some relatively short time, interrogated, and this interrogation was conducted in conjunction with Raffaele's. These parallel interrogations were apparently part of the novel technique Giobbi was introducing to the Perugian police, as he testified. He also testified that he and Profazio, who had the same police rank as Giobbi (Assistant Deputy Chief), monitored and/or controlled the interrogations while they were in progress. So these statements appear to conform to elements of police practice during critical interrogations, which are likely to be monitored by higher-ranking officers especially when the interrogations are planned. Furthermore, Giobbi reports hearing Amanda scream and cry, which suggests that he was present and listening, within some proximity to the interrogation rooms; Raffaele in his book confirms that Amanda could be heard crying and screaming.

 

[Matthew Best]

Many a true word said in jest ~ Shakespeare

Can't you even quote Shakespeare correctly?

 

[Antony]

Maybe therein lies your answer. You have a callous attitude towards a wholly innocent young woman just setting out on her life and you prefer to play with the truth to defend what you must know is the indefensible.

That describes you precisely. The wholly innocent young woman just setting out on her life is Amanda Knox, whose life you want to see destroyed. You play with the truth by posting a torrent of known falsehoods, in the style of PMF and TJMK, in the hope of misleading the uninformed.

Well, I have news for you. I rather think there are no more of the uninformed reading this forum, and if there were, they would quickly come to see where the truth lies - and it isn't among those still clinging tenuously to belief in Amanda and Raff's involvement with the murder.

Of course, we know that by "wholly innocent young woman" you are referring not to Amanda, but to Meredith Kercher. I don't see any "callous disregard" among those supporting AK and RS. We are the ones wanting to see the truth told about Meredith's murder; that shows far better regard for her than those trying to manipulate the tragedy for their own personal ends - either career advancement in the case of the Italian agencies who pursued a groundless prosecution, or the morbid satisfaction of the hangars-on in instinctively take the side of anyone making accusations.

 

[Kauffer]

Nencini bent over backwards for the kids, but couldn't fault the court of the first instance, who also gave the kids a soft ride.

You said that nothing Guede said should be relied on. Yet Nencini did exactly that. He relied on Guede's statement!

"the British girl immediately attributed the action (the theft) to Amanda Marie Knox; a circumstance that is compatible only with a negative evaluation of the personality of the defendant on part of the victim." (p. 315)

“the fact that Guede insistently reports the circumstance in all of his interrogations, together with the remark that there is evidence that indeed a sum of 300 euro had been stashed by the victim for the payment of the rent, makes the tale of the Ivorian objectively believable”. (p. 317)

Guede never mentioned 300 euros!

 

[Kauffer]

Huh!?

Nencini convicted them partly on testimony Guede, and only Guede, gave to another court.

Italian law does not permit statements from witnesses to be used to convict defendants when the defendants have no opportunity to impeach such statements in cross.

 

[Kauffer]

Nencini bent over backwards for the kids, but couldn't fault the court of the first instance, who also gave the kids a soft ride.

What examples from the motivation report can you cite to support this view that Nencini "bent over backwards" for Amanda and Raffaele?

 

[Strozzi]

Let me add to or emphasize a point about the above post. Giobbi may be puffing up or lying about ordering the interrogation of both Amanda and Raffaele as suspects, but he is reporting about his own actions and intentions.

On the other hand, when he states, for example, that the blood downstairs was cat blood, this must be based on what others have told him; it is hearsay and inference. In fact, Stefanoni did not have any record of testing those downstairs blood stains for the species, and such an antigen-antibody test is possible. However, the samples of downstairs blood stains did produce DNA profiles, not identified in the available records supplied by the police, and this suggests either that the blood was human, or that there was human DNA on the substrates (surfaces) under the stains, because the PCR enzyme used for DNA replication in the test is primate-specific. Thus, Giobbi may well be lying or repeating misinformation about the downstairs blood.

But when it comes to the substance of his orders or his intentions to order, he may be considered the best source of such information. The only part of his statement that is apparently contradicted by other information is that Amanda was not specifically requested to come to the police station on Nov. 5, 2007. However, once she was in the station, she was, after some relatively short time, interrogated, and this interrogation was conducted in conjunction with Raffaele's. These parallel interrogations were apparently part of the novel technique Giobbi was introducing to the Perugian police, as he testified. He also testified that he and Profazio, who had the same police rank as Giobbi (Assistant Deputy Chief), monitored and/or controlled the interrogations while they were in progress. So these statements appear to conform to elements of police practice during critical interrogations, which are likely to be monitored by higher-ranking officers especially when the interrogations are planned. Furthermore, Giobbi reports hearing Amanda scream and cry, which suggests that he was present and listening, within some proximity to the interrogation rooms; Raffaele in his book confirms that Amanda could be heard crying and screaming.

If I remember correctly, Giobbi also stated that Police Chief de Felice was with him in the control room during some of the interrogation. de Felice, as chief, is responsible at all times for what his officers do and especially when he is present. de Felice should be questioned about this, not because he will ever be held legally responsible for it (he will escape liability) but because questioning him for his witness account may clarify what he heard and saw and how he heard and saw it including the equipment that was being used (video screen?). Publicly or privately questioning de Felice may put other Italian police chiefs and senior police managers on notice that they may be questioned about what occurs in their police stations.

 

[toto]

Can't you even quote Shakespeare correctly?

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/many-a-true-word.html

The first author to express this thought in English was probably Geoffrey Chaucer. He included it in The Cook's Tale, 1390:


But yet I pray thee be not wroth for game; [don't be angry with my jesting]
A man may say full sooth [the truth] in game and play.

Shakespeare later came closer to our contemporary version of the expression, in King Lear, 1605:


Jesters do oft prove prophets.
​

 

[MichaelB]

If I remember correctly, Giobbi also stated that Police Chief de Felice was with him in the control room during some of the interrogation. de Felice, as chief, is responsible at all times for what his officers do and especially when he is present. de Felice should be questioned about this, not because he will ever be held legally responsible for it (he will escape liability) but because questioning him for his witness account may clarify what he heard and saw and how he heard and saw it including the equipment that was being used (video screen?). Publicly or privately questioning de Felice may put other Italian police chiefs and senior police managers on notice that they may be questioned about what occurs in their police stations.

I think you mean Giacinto Profazio the Homer Simson look-alike...

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/gallery/Giacinto-Profazio-300x300.jpg

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited for rule 5.

 

[Vixen]

But that's my point. Rudy, the most obvious suspect, with the criminal past, and a member of an underprivileged national and ethnic group, leaves all the primary evidence, so should it be surprising that he takes all the blame and the killer kids go free? And if Rudy doesn't like being the lone one in jail, he has the option to give reliable testimony or produce hard evidence implicating his conspirators. He didn't, for reasons you state. Thus here we are in 2015 with AK and RS forever free, and Rudy forever a convicted murderer of Meredith Kercher. This outcome seems not unexpected given the circumstances. You're acting like it's so odd that two privileged white people managed to get away with the crime while the poor black accomplice takes the rap. I think future killers should take lessons from AK and RS and con poor clueless black criminals to come to their crime scenes and dig around in their victims genitals, walk around in their blood, hopelessly spin ridiculous tales of nonsense, and stage break-ins matching their previous crimes. It really is the perfect murder.

What? Not me, gov. I didn't say anything of the sort. Please do not put words in my mouth.

 

[bagels]

What? Not me, gov. I didn't say anything of the sort. Please do not put words in my mouth.

You've made a lot of posts but haven't seemed to recognized either the luck or skill or significance of what AK and RS pulled off.

If Rudy the black criminal declines the invitation to come rape the white British student and cover himself in her blood, Amanda is in jail for life.

If Raffaele's footprint was the slightest bit more morphologically and figuratively distinct from Rudy's, Amanda is in jail for life.

If Amanda jabbed in the kitchen knife a centimeter in a different direction, she is in jail for life.

If a single reactive spec of blood survived on the knife, when it had a 600x greater chance of doing so compared to white blood cell DNA, Amanda is in jail for life.

If a single drop of blood made it into RS's car or apartment, Amanda is in jail for life.

If their eager-to-blame-them accomplice Rudy produces a single piece of evidence corroborating a relationship between the three, Amanda is in jail for life.

If Amanda cracks in the interrogation and yells Rudy's name instead of Patrick's, she's in jail for life.

If Raffaele, after destroying AK's alibi, gives a single additional credible piece of evidence against her, she's in jail for life.

If they washed the bloody prints with any other substance, on any other surface, Amanda is in jail for life.

If Curatolo and Quintavalle immediately confirm what they saw the next day after the extremely high profile crime when the police come knocking, Amanda is in jail for life.

If Meredith had managed to deliver the bloody blow to Amanda a centimeter in any other direction where it would actually bruise, Amanda is in jail for life.

If the CCTV had a functional working clock, RS's phone lie is proven, and Amanda is in jail for life.

If the police pick up the bra clasp on day 1 with clean gloves, Amanda is in jail for life.

If the police photograph glass on top of clothes instead of reporting hearsay, Amanda is in jail for life.

If any two other forensic professors are appointed by the court in appeal, Amanda is in jail for life.



As Samuel L Jackson says, what happened here was a miracle and I want you to acknowledge it.

 

[acbytesla]

What? Not me, gov. I didn't say anything of the sort. Please do not put words in my mouth.

I'm pretty sure he's screwing with you Vixen.

 

[Bill Williams]

You've made a lot of posts but haven't seemed to recognized either the luck or skill or significance of what AK and RS pulled off.

If Rudy the black criminal declines the invitation to come rape the white British student and cover himself in her blood, Amanda is in jail for life.

If Raffaele's footprint was the slightest bit more morphologically and figuratively distinct from Rudy's, Amanda is in jail for life.

If Amanda jabbed in the kitchen knife a centimeter in a different direction, she is in jail for life.

If a single reactive spec of blood survived on the knife, when it had a 600x greater chance of doing so compared to white blood cell DNA, Amanda is in jail for life.

If a single drop of blood made it into RS's car or apartment, Amanda is in jail for life.

If their eager-to-blame-them accomplice Rudy produces a single piece of evidence corroborating a relationship between the three, Amanda is in jail for life.

If Amanda cracks in the interrogation and yells Rudy's name instead of Patrick's, she's in jail for life.

If Raffaele, after destroying AK's alibi, gives a single additional credible piece of evidence against her, she's in jail for life.

If they washed the bloody prints with any other substance, on any other surface, Amanda is in jail for life.

If Curatolo and Quintavalle immediately confirm what they saw the next day after the extremely high profile crime when the police come knocking, Amanda is in jail for life.

If Meredith had managed to deliver the bloody blow to Amanda a centimeter in any other direction where it would actually bruise, Amanda is in jail for life.

If the CCTV had a functional working clock, RS's phone lie is proven, and Amanda is in jail for life.

If the police pick up the bra clasp on day 1 with clean gloves, Amanda is in jail for life.
If the police photograph glass on top of clothes instead of reporting hearsay, Amanda is in jail for life.

If any two other forensic professors are appointed by the court in appeal, Amanda is in jail for life.


As Samuel L Jackson says, what happened here was a miracle and I want you to acknowledge it.

If they'd picked up the clasp on Day 1 with clean gloves, there would have been no 165B on it. Also any other competent forensic professors would have come to the same conclusions Conti & Vecchiotti came to.

So it is not so miraculous after all!