Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[stilicho]

Yay! Found it!


http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009_05_01_archive.html

So, Giobbi says they were in a pizzeria when they were called. I'd been Googling 'pizza' and I should have been searching for 'pizzeria'.

Back up there a second. You mean our only source is Frank?

 

[stilicho]

The claim that started us down this track was that Amanda had a pizza immediately before being questioned, thus she had no need for food or drink during her interrogation.

What?

The claim was that they chose not to attend either the Questura or the vigil.

From Amanda's various testimony, diaries, and emails, it seems she is always hungry.

 

[Jungle Jim]

From the Perugia Shock blog referenced in post #7636:

And Edgardo was sure, and provided even details to make his version credible. I'm mathematically sure that I gave that order, in that moment our attention was on Amanda and Raffaele, I decided that we needed to hear them together in order to study their reactions. We called them and they were eating in a pizzeria.

So how did Edgardo Giobbi know they were in a pizzeria? One explanation is that RS told the police that is where he and AK were when they called him. This is, of course, at odds with Amanda's testimony that they were eating dinner at a friend's place when RS received the call from the police to come in. You would think the prosecutor would make the point at trial that one of them was lying.

 

[stilicho]

From the Perugia Shock blog referenced in post #7636:


So how did Edgardo Giobbi know they were in a pizzeria? One explanation is that RS told the police that is where he and AK were when they called him. This is, of course, at odds with Amanda's testimony that they were eating dinner at a friend's place when RS received the call from the police to come in. You would think the prosecutor would make the point at trial that one of them was lying.

We are missing the police testimony.

Not that this issue is incredibly important but I'd like to know whether they were somewhere else other than the Questura or the vigil at 20:00-ish. I just don't consider Frank to be a reliable source.

 

[Jungle Jim]

We are missing the police testimony.

Not that this issue is incredibly important but I'd like to know whether they were somewhere else other than the Questura or the vigil at 20:00-ish. I just don't consider Frank to be a reliable source.

I agree. However, for the moment this is the only source presented for the pizzeria.

 

[shuttlt]

One way to resolve this, and possibly do away with having to rely on Frank, would be to find a more complete version of the interview with Giobbi that Bruce linked to. In that he is supposed to say that one of the things he found suspicious was them having pizza. Hopefully there is more to the quote in Italian.

 

[Dan O.]

There is a mention of going for pizza in the Massei Report. I don't recall that it mentioned a time though.

 

[lector]

We are missing the police testimony.

Not that this issue is incredibly important but I'd like to know whether they were somewhere else other than the Questura or the vigil at 20:00-ish. I just don't consider Frank to be a reliable source.

Especially since it's Evil Frank instead of Good Frank.

 

[shuttlt]

I've just fast forwarded through Sex, Lies, and Meredith Kercher, American Girl, Italian Nightmare, A Long Way From Home and American Girl, Italian Murder: The Verdict. I can't find the clip of Giobbi saying the stuff about them having pizza being suspicious. Perhaps I missed it, it's quite a bit of material after all. Does anybody know what video the clip is from?

 

[stilicho]

There is a mention of going for pizza in the Massei Report. I don't recall that it mentioned a time though.

Can you find it? I really want to know now whether they chose to do something other than be at the Questura or at the vigil. I won't accept Frank as a reliable source. A police interview or court testimony would work.

 

[tsig]

Amanda met Lumumba on the 5th: does anyone know what time that was at? She also attended lectures so far as I remember: does anyone know what time that was at? If lectures were at 9 am did she study for the whole morning (including writing the "letter") which was then read out to the class? Did she meet Patrick after class at lunch time? or did any of that happen in the afternoon. I think RS also had classes that day: when were they?

What color was the underwear she bought. If red then she's guilty. blue maybe and white innocent because we know guilty people never wear white.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

disheartening

How does it make the whole case disheartening?

I can accept your discomfort with the double-DNA kinfe evidence. However, there is much more to the case than that.

Lector,

It is disheartening because I am concerned that the lack of information disclosure and the use of LCN methods in this case will set bad precedents. It is also unfortunate that criticism of the DNA evidence in this case is being construed as meaning that all DNA evidence is problematic all of the time.

Halides1

 

[Amazer]

Lector,

It is disheartening because I am concerned that the lack of information disclosure and the use of LCN methods in this case will set bad precedents. It is also unfortunate that criticism of the DNA evidence in this case is being construed as meaning that all DNA evidence is problematic all of the time.

Halides1

Information was disclosed just fine... if you feel otherwise, show us where the defense complained to the courts about information not being disclosed even though they were legally entitled to that information.

As for your objection to the manner in which the LCN methods were used in this case. You haven't made a particular strong case as to why it should not be used the way it has. At least not in the eyes of the court till now.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Knox's defense would have taken a different approach

Information was disclosed just fine... if you feel otherwise, show us where the defense complained to the courts about information not being disclosed even though they were legally entitled to that information.

Amazer and Fiona,

It is not clear to me that the prosecution would have been doing its duty, even if it had turned over everything upon the July, 2009 court order, “Sollecito's lawyer, Giulia Bongiorno, addressed the court for 20 minutes arguing that the defense was not provided with crucial details of Sollecito's DNA allegedly found on Kercher's bra hook until July 30. The rights of the defense were damaged, she said, when ‘documents regarding the quantity of biological material on the bra hook and documents regarding the procedure used to attain DNA results were not made available to the defense…’We see from a handwritten note that was made available only this summer, that the quantity of DNA on that sample B [Kercher's DNA] of the knife was noted as being “too low,”’ Dalla Vedova told the court. Had defense lawyers seen this note earlier, he said, Knox's defense would have taken a different approach.” http://abcnews.go.com/International/US/amanda-knox-trial-resumes-dna-fight/story?id=8566292&page=2

But they did not release everything even then, as RoseMontague pointed out upthread, citing a Bob Graham article. Frank Sfarzo summed it up, “But the time for vacations is over and Massei doesn't make gifts anymore, he doesn't feel like hearing subtleties. And came back with his ruthless verdict: the trial continues, the DNA results are fine like this. Whether we like it or not we have to trust Stefanoni.” http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/09/too-low.html A defendant should have the right to see and to challenge the evidence against him or her, IMHO, and that principle is at risk in this case.

halides1

 

[Dan O.]

Can you find it? I really want to know now whether they chose to do something other than be at the Questura or at the vigil. I won't accept Frank as a reliable source. A police interview or court testimony would work.

That was on page 96. I believe this is excerpted from the trial testimony of Domenico Profazio Hyacinth:

Ritonò nella casa di Via della Pergola il giorno 4 novembre. Ricordava che avevano chiamato in Questura La Romanelli, la Mezzetti e la Knox. Ad un certo punto arrivò Raffaele Sollecito che "voleva a tutti i costi parlare con Amanda...poi Raffaele è andato a prendere la pizza e noi siamo andati, col PM, col capo dello SCO, con Profazio...con le coinquiline in via della Pergola a fare il riconoscimento dei coltelli in cucina" e le ragazze, Mezzetti, Romanelli, Knox, rilevarono che non mancava nessun coltello (pag. 237)​

Google was butchering the translation more than normal because of the ellipses where the sentences were cut from the referenced document. In this new translation, it looks like only Raffaele is going for the pizza and everybody else went to look at cutlery.

Ritonò the house on Via della Pergola on November 4. He remembered that they had called the police Romanelli, the Mezzetti and Knox. At one point came Raffaele Sollecito that "he wanted at all costs ... then talk to Amanda Raffaele went to get pizza and we went, with the PM, head of the SCO, with the occupants in Profazio ... Via della Pergola to make the recognition of the knives in the kitchen and girls, Mezzetti, Romanelli, Knox, noting that there was not any knife (p. 237)​

 

[Amazer]

Amazer and Fiona,

It is not clear to me that the prosecution would have been doing its duty, even if it had turned over everything upon the July, 2009 court order, “Sollecito's lawyer, Giulia Bongiorno, addressed the court for 20 minutes arguing that the defense was not provided with crucial details of Sollecito's DNA allegedly found on Kercher's bra hook until July 30. The rights of the defense were damaged, she said, when ‘documents regarding the quantity of biological material on the bra hook and documents regarding the procedure used to attain DNA results were not made available to the defense…’We see from a handwritten note that was made available only this summer, that the quantity of DNA on that sample B [Kercher's DNA] of the knife was noted as being “too low,”’ Dalla Vedova told the court. Had defense lawyers seen this note earlier, he said, Knox's defense would have taken a different approach.” http://abcnews.go.com/International/US/amanda-knox-trial-resumes-dna-fight/story?id=8566292&page=2

But they did not release everything even then, as RoseMontague pointed out upthread, citing a Bob Graham article. Frank Sfarzo summed it up, “But the time for vacations is over and Massei doesn't make gifts anymore, he doesn't feel like hearing subtleties. And came back with his ruthless verdict: the trial continues, the DNA results are fine like this. Whether we like it or not we have to trust Stefanoni.” http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/09/too-low.html A defendant should have the right to see and to challenge the evidence against him or her, IMHO, and that principle is at risk in this case.

halides1

Halides1,

I'm not really interested what the (prosecution and defense) lawyers said in public, i'm not interested in what some journalist/writer writes in his/her articles. I'm only interested in what was said in Court, how the Judge ruled on it, the reasons the judge gave leading up to his decision. And to see if that decision is in line with the (in this case Italian) Laws that apply.

So far you have failed to show that evidence that the defense was legally entitled to see was withheld. Without showing this I have to assume that the prosecution did release all the information that they were required to.

If you feel that the Judges ruling was in error, then show me how it is in error. Show which law is being broken, or how previous rulings by the courts would indicate that the information that was not given in this case, is normally given in other cases. Without doing that, i have to assume that the Judge is right with his rulings in this case.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Halides1,

I'm not really interested what the (prosecution and defense) lawyers said in public, i'm not interested in what some journalist/writer writes in his/her articles. I'm only interested in what was said in Court, how the Judge ruled on it, the reasons the judge gave leading up to his decision. And to see if that decision is in line with the (in this case Italian) Laws that apply.

So far you have failed to show that evidence that the defense was legally entitled to see was withheld. Without showing this I have to assume that the prosecution did release all the information that they were required to.

If you feel that the Judges ruling was in error, then show me how it is in error. Show which law is being broken, or how previous rulings by the courts would indicate that the information that was not given in this case, is normally given in other cases. Without doing that, i have to assume that the Judge is right with his rulings in this case.

Additionally, it appears that Massei was becoming frustrated with Defense attempts to stall the proceedings (hence the "vacation" bit).

Just because the Defense requests more information does not mean there's more information to be delivered, nor does requesting more time to peruse the information they have mean they really need the time.

 

[christianahannah]

That was on page 96. I believe this is excerpted from the trial testimony of Domenico Profazio Hyacinth:

Ritonò nella casa di Via della Pergola il giorno 4 novembre. Ricordava che avevano chiamato in Questura La Romanelli, la Mezzetti e la Knox. Ad un certo punto arrivò Raffaele Sollecito che "voleva a tutti i costi parlare con Amanda...poi Raffaele è andato a prendere la pizza e noi siamo andati, col PM, col capo dello SCO, con Profazio...con le coinquiline in via della Pergola a fare il riconoscimento dei coltelli in cucina" e le ragazze, Mezzetti, Romanelli, Knox, rilevarono che non mancava nessun coltello (pag. 237)​

Google was butchering the translation more than normal because of the ellipses where the sentences were cut from the referenced document. In this new translation, it looks like only Raffaele is going for the pizza and everybody else went to look at cutlery.

Ritonò the house on Via della Pergola on November 4. He remembered that they had called the police Romanelli, the Mezzetti and Knox. At one point came Raffaele Sollecito that "he wanted at all costs ... then talk to Amanda Raffaele went to get pizza and we went, with the PM, head of the SCO, with the occupants in Profazio ... Via della Pergola to make the recognition of the knives in the kitchen and girls, Mezzetti, Romanelli, Knox, noting that there was not any knife (p. 237)​

There is a pizzeria receipt of Raffaele's photographed by the police with the date of 04-11-2007. The receipt can be viewed at Bruce Fisher's site under the Lies & Misinformation column.

I do not know if this is the same date that Giobbi speaks of concerning Amanda and Raffaele. Obviously, this receipt is dated one day prior to their questioning at the station.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

There is also a claim flying about that one of Giobbi's reasons for being suspicious was that Amanda and Raffaele were found eating pizza. The way it is a told it makes no sense. So, I for one would be keen to get to the bottom of it.

They were already eating the pizza when they were called. They were not observed eating pizza that led to the suspicion.

They were also not out buying underwear. Barbie confused the dates.
Barbie is not a good source. I have a whole list of errors in her book that I will be detailing.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

They did not attend the vigil. They were exhausted. They had already been questioned for many hours. they ate a pizza. Laura and Filomena did not attend the vigil either. I know they were not college students but they still chose not to attend. There is nothing incriminating about not attending a vigil.

They did not shop for underwear on this day. the famous underwear shopping day came sooner. Look at the dates of the news stories regarding the underwear.

Barbie is not a good source.