Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kaosium]

We can't be sure whether the police intended for Amanda to come to the Questura that night, can we? Didn't Napoleoni testify that they didn't and Giobbi testify that they did?

Giobbi however, was the man in charge, and he was quite specific in his insistence, providing reasons and associated memories. Napoleoni's testimony is dubious on a number of points, and her 'story' dovetails nicely with a fabricated effort to pretend the twelve-cop all-night session was instead a 'spontaneous admission' when Amanda was just chatting with a few female police.

Amanda's is most interesting, as she said she didn't think she was summoned. However at that point she's receiving the information through a stoned boyfriend who heard it from an incompetent police officer whose superior disavowed her statement on the stand, and who also yelled at Amanda about it practically the moment she got there. So from Amanda's standpoint all she has on one hand is whatever Raffaele said or might not have, being as he might have assumed she'd tag along anyway and have been laconic in that state, and the fact Monica Napoleoni yelled at her about it when she got there, which might well have just have been a ploy to 'loosen her up' for the night's festivities.

The twelve cop overnight session, which is now the official record due to the calunnia charge, and the arrest of Patrick on such feeble grounds disproves the idea there was any 'spontaneity' about the interrogations of Raffaele and Amanda in my mind. What did they talk to Raffaele about? Amanda's alibi, and they got what they wanted with incredible swiftness, the time on his signed statement being all of twenty-five minutes from the instant they walked through the door. These guys weren't messing around, they flattened Raffaele, thus considering the subject matter they certainly would have wanted Amanda handy.

 

[LondonJohn]

What's valid about it? You don't think that someone with more then a little bit of knowledge about stone and it's properties can work out where it most certainly wouldn't land? Or do you believe that having experience with throwing rocks through windows is a prerequisite for making that determination?

I think a decent knowledge of Newtonian physics would be more useful than a knowledge of stone products, to be honest.

 

[pilot padron]

I still chuckle when I remember when the latest theory was that many of us on the side of wrongful conviction were actually paid bloggers, under the command of David Marriott.

Apologies for some redundancies since I was writing my answer to halides and did not see the 'piling on'

Since Marriott also admits this publicly:
We consider every project individually and assemble a team to suit the client's specific needs. We then develop and implement a plan; usually integrating a range of tactics such as earned and paid media, community outreach, ally development, and government relations among other ways of reaching important audiences.
http://www.gogertymarriott.com/whatwedo

And without the signature Googled interpretations of 'media', I am glad you find minutes of merriment from what IMHO is a pretty small stretch.

*Some* may think semi professional bloggers like Frank and Candace (pause to genuflect when mentioning these sources on this Board) as well as less professional but no less prolific bloggers may have been somehow compensated.

To be clear and add a note of finality; I do not have enough evidence to make that claim, but it is not one I find in any way 'amusing'.

Furthermore, it is certainly more easily defended than supporting other people who say that Nara is nuts and deaf.
That is indeed laughable

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Frank has already said on NUMEROUS posts, that Oggi is not a credible source. You need not go any further. Anyone reading here, it's as plain as day.

May I suggest a calming breath? The hatred and jealousy about PMF cannot be good for your health, or sanity. It's rather alarming,actually.

So, to wrap it up in a nutshell. Frank has spoken to Nara on many occasions..He says she's not deaf or mental. That is the point. You may find Oggi creditible, and Candace, who pasted from Oggi. Frank disputes this whole heartily. I do hope this is now clear. I don't know what else poor Frank can do, to make you change your mind. The man has already debunked your belief countless times. Give him a break, already.

I think its funny how you are suggesting a calming breath to me when it's pretty clear that you have become unhinged about this topic. I don't doubt that Frank is being sincere. What you are failing to understand is the fact that I also respect Paul and Candace and I feel that Oggi is a credible source when it comes to this case.

You are asking me to call out people that I respect and side with Frank when I have no way to confirm the information. I have taken no position on this. I don't care if Nara is hard of hearing. There is plenty more wrong with Nara that already discredited her testimony.

People like you seem sincere yet you never acknowledge the actions of the group in which you participate. I have no jealousy of PMF. Why would anyone be jealous of that bunch? I will never miss an opportunity to call out PMF members for the conduct of the group. That can hardly be justified as jealousy. I never expect you to explain their actions because you and i both know their actions are indefensible. For the past 2 days they have mocked a 16 year old kid. They seem to think I am involved as usual. Of course I have never spoken to the teen blogger. The truth is a teen aged boy has voiced his opinion on a blog and the hate spewing members of PMF have decided to mock him. Just one of many ways that your group preserves the memory of Meredith Kercher. What a joke!

 

[Chris C]

What if their convictions are confirmed, do you think Raffaele and Amanda’s parents will apologies to the Kercher family?, do you think they will accept such a verdict?

What do the parents have to appologize for? They didn't hire a lawyer and go after Meredith. Regardless of who killed Meredith, the parents didn't do it. Only the killer(s) have something to apologize for.

Here is a googled definition for you of apology.

a written or spoken expression of one's regret, remorse, or sorrow for having insulted, failed, injured, or wronged another.

If Knox's and Sollecitos family have insulted, failed, injured or wronged them, then they have something to apologize for. Do you think the kerchers fall into that category if Knox and/or Sollecito truely had nothing to do with the crime?

 

[Diastole]

Giobbi however, was the man in charge, and he was quite specific in his insistence, providing reasons and associated memories. Napoleoni's testimony is dubious on a number of points, and her 'story' dovetails nicely with a fabricated effort to pretend the twelve-cop all-night session was instead a 'spontaneous admission' when Amanda was just chatting with a few female police.

Amanda's is most interesting, as she said she didn't think she was summoned. However at that point she's receiving the information through a stoned boyfriend who heard it from an incompetent police officer whose superior disavowed her statement on the stand, and who also yelled at Amanda about it practically the moment she got there. So from Amanda's standpoint all she has on one hand is whatever Raffaele said or might not have, being as he might have assumed she'd tag along anyway and have been laconic in that state, and the fact Monica Napoleoni yelled at her about it when she got there, which might well have just have been a ploy to 'loosen her up' for the night's festivities.

The twelve cop overnight session, which is now the official record due to the calunnia charge, and the arrest of Patrick on such feeble grounds disproves the idea there was any 'spontaneity' about the interrogations of Raffaele and Amanda in my mind. What did they talk to Raffaele about? Amanda's alibi, and they got what they wanted with incredible swiftness, the time on his signed statement being all of twenty-five minutes from the instant they walked through the door. These guys weren't messing around, they flattened Raffaele, thus considering the subject matter they certainly would have wanted Amanda handy.

Perhaps the intention was to summon Sollecito first, induce him to change his story, and then to apprehend Knox later that night after she had gone to sleep, in order to enhance the stress of her interrogation. If she had inadvertently forestalled this plan, it might account for the irritation at her presence in the Questura during Sollecito's interrogation.

One of the many things that intrigues me about this case is how Knox ended up under suspicion so quickly in what would appear to be a fairly obvious sexual homicide. Surely, Umbria must have its share of convicted sexual offenders who would have attracted greater interest from the police. Did they really think that no one could have climbed in through Romanelli's window? Was it a misinterpretation of that shadowy figure on the parking garage tape with an incorrect time stamp?

I believe it was Nina Burliegh who made a curious comment about this case, to the effect that she had lost count of the number of Dottores who had told her that burglers don't kill. Perhaps this type of crime is viewed through a markedly different cultural filter in Italy than it would be in North America? At any rate, I do think that Skeptic Ginger was on to something, at least metaphorically speaking, when she asserted that Knox was convicted due to a cartwheel.

 

[LondonJohn]

Apologies for some redundancies since I was writing my answer to halides and did not see the 'piling on'

Since Marriott also admits this publicly:
We consider every project individually and assemble a team to suit the client's specific needs. We then develop and implement a plan; usually integrating a range of tactics such as earned and paid media, community outreach, ally development, and government relations among other ways of reaching important audiences.
http://www.gogertymarriott.com/whatwedo

And without the signature Googled interpretations of 'media', I am glad you find minutes of merriment from what IMHO is a pretty small stretch.

*Some* may think semi professional bloggers like Frank and Candace (pause to genuflect when mentioning these sources on this Board) as well as less professional but no less prolific bloggers may have been somehow compensated.

To be clear and add a note of finality; I do not have enough evidence to make that claim, but it is not one I find in any way 'amusing'.

Furthermore, it is certainly more easily defended than supporting other people who say that Nara is nuts and deaf.
That is indeed laughable

Unfortunately, you're confusing the work that Gogerty Marriott does for its commercial clients (e.g. airlines) with the work it does for the Knox/Mellas families. Can you see how commercial clients - Gogerty Marriott's bread and butter work - might have different aims, different target audiences and different budgets from the family of a woman incarcerated in Italy?

When you say that Gogerty Marriott "admits" to the scope of its services, how do you make the leap to even suppose - far less assume - that it provides this full range of services to the Knox/Mellas families? Or is it no more than wishful thinking?

 

[capealadin]

pilot padron,

I asked capealadin to discuss Nara's inconsistencies in her testimony, but she has refused. Would you care to give it a try?

I'm not here to do your bidding. A specific point was raised, and has been dealt with. The fact that, as usual, you choose to try and muddy the waters, and squirm off on to something different, is a game you may play on your own.

I have already told you, countless times, and this is the last time, that the discussion was a false article in Oggi, and that was repeated as being factual, even when denied by one of your own, Frank from Perugia Shock.

The testimony, will be accepted or thrown out, in the apeals process. At the time of the decision, it will be appropriate to discuss it.

You really, really need to know when to fold them, Halides, or you're just throwing your money away.

 

[capealadin]

I think its funny how you are suggesting a calming breath to me when it's pretty clear that you have become unhinged about this topic. I don't doubt that Frank is being sincere. What you are failing to understand is the fact that I also respect Paul and Candace and I feel that Oggi is a credible source when it comes to this case.

You are asking me to call out people that I respect and side with Frank when I have no way to confirm the information. I have taken no position on this. I don't care if Nara is hard of hearing. There is plenty more wrong with Nara that already discredited her testimony.

People like you seem sincere yet you never acknowledge the actions of the group in which you participate. I have no jealousy of PMF. Why would anyone be jealous of that bunch? I will never miss an opportunity to call out PMF members for the conduct of the group. That can hardly be justified as jealousy. I never expect you to explain their actions because you and i both know their actions are indefensible. For the past 2 days they have mocked a 16 year old kid. They seem to think I am involved as usual. Of course I have never spoken to the teen blogger. The truth is a teen aged boy has voiced his opinion on a blog and the hate spewing members of PMF have decided to mock him. Just one of many ways that your group preserves the memory of Meredith Kercher. What a joke!

Unhinged? That's definitely the pot calling the kettle black

So, Bruce, Set me straight here. I believe all your articles about PMF, in certain newspapers, were taken down, because....they were scurrilous, yes? You don;t want to go there, you really don't.

Of course you find Oggi, Paul and Candace credible. It suits your agenda.

Poor Frank. Thrown under the bus.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

CoulsdonUK,

You asked for a second citation, and I gave one. When you come back, I hope you choose to discuss Dr. Giobbi's statement.

Halides1

Look, it is fair to say that there are a number of sites covering Meredith murder and that each site has a publicly stated position on either side of this case, therefore, the sole reason for me asking for an independent source is to simply try and reduce bias, nothing more.

I do not regard Frank or Candance as independent, as I said I want to reduce bias as much as possible.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

What do the parents have to appologize for? They didn't hire a lawyer and go after Meredith. Regardless of who killed Meredith, the parents didn't do it. Only the killer(s) have something to apologize for.

Here is a googled definition for you of apology.

a written or spoken expression of one's regret, remorse, or sorrow for having insulted, failed, injured, or wronged another.

If Knox's and Sollecitos family have insulted, failed, injured or wronged them, then they have something to apologize for. Do you think the kerchers fall into that category if Knox and/or Sollecito truely had nothing to do with the crime?

Please re-read my entire post, thanks.

 

[Danceme]

Danceme,

Could "safe" simply mean that the computer was there? I am not sure that what Amanda said precludes the presence of glass on her computer, although I don't know the layout of her room. Also, my point is more general, that Filomena disturbed her room twice, IIRC. I was perhaps unnecessarily specific before in naming the computer as a possible source of broken glass bits. Finally, I do not reject the hypothesis that some of Filomena's clothes were on her floor before the rock came through. Is this not Ron Hendry's position?

Halides, the point was that Amanda recounted clearly seeing the laptop on Filomena's desk, yet Filomena had to actually retrieve it from the pile of clothes etc. under the window, shaking the glass from it as she picked it up. Why did Amanda say it was on the desk when it wasn't? And you can't really say at this point you don't know the layout of Filomena's room???

Now lets take a look at the portion of knox's email you quoted. I think I have the correct version.



Now this statement shows Knox sending an email where she states the computer was on the desk and this confused and made her think they were robbed? Are we sure she just didn't make a simple typo? Now i'm not sure whether she ever repeated that statement or not, but seeing the computer where it is suppose to be at shouldn't both confuse her and make her think they where robbed. Now if it wasn't, then she might get confused and think they where robbed.

IMO, Amanda says the computer on the desk confused her because she would have expected it to be gone were there an actual burglary, as she believed when she saw the mess.

capealadin,

One can see Paul speaking to her through an interpreter on YouTube in a 48 Hours documentary, IIRC. Paul discusses Nara's relatives at his presentation at Seattle University. What makes you certain that Amanda had no salary money to deposit?

When Charlie told of the deposit of over 500 euros that weekend to Amanda's bank account, he said he asked Chris Mellas about it and Chris didn't know what it was for IIRC.

Do you not trust Frank's reporting? If so, why not?

EDT
It is also in Murder in Italy, but I do not have a page number.

Do you not trust Frank's reporting? You seem to have a problem accepting his opinion of Nara over that of Oggi or Paul.

pilot padron,

I asked capealadin to discuss Nara's inconsistencies in her testimony, but she has refused. Would you care to give it a try?

What are the inconsistencies in her testimony halides? Did she say one thing one day and a complete other thing the next? or are you meaning how her testimony doesn't fit the facts of the case as you see them? Nara simply related two events, the scream and the footsteps, and tried to place a time on them to the best of her knowledge. Whether these events fit the facts of the case is up to the prosecution to argue and the defense to deny. She didn't say anything to directly implicate anyone.

 

[Mary_H]

Because of the legal principal would be my response; it’s not about whether the content of a taped conversation is innocuous or harmful, but whether it is legal to tape a conversation in the first place.

ROME — In Italy, you’re nobody if your phone isn’t tapped. Or, as Beppe Grillo, Italy’s leading political provocateur and blogger, put it: “This is a nation where if you can’t be blackmailed, you’ll never get ahead.”

An Untapped Phone Call in Italy? It’s Possible

 

[Chris_Halkides]

1) Marriott acknowledges endeavors about 'managing media requests to the family
A) Barbie Nadeau and others stated that any and all access to the Family was indeed very 'managed'
B) Any reasonable person watching the *multitude* of US media presentations from the 'Curt Edda and Amanda Forever' series on morning mom TV can also see the 'managing' definitely includes what may and may not be asked of the Family.

This single admitted area of 'endeavors' over a couple years, with scores of professional involvements each year does not come cheap.

2) Furthermore, read between the lines of the self aggrandizing website of the PR Firm that includes a picture of Amanda on their "showcase' page citing areas of
A) 'Crisis communications' and bragging about it as a recent 'campaign'.
B) Marriott Showcases professional PR 'endeavors' on the scale of *campaigns, communicating about Amanda's crisis since Nov 2007*.
SNIP
That assertion IMHO is a lot easier to defend than refusing to admit the lack of credibility in claims that Nara is nuts and deaf solely because Oggi said it and Ciolino *says* he heard someone else say it.

With that in mind, I submit this answer because it seems to be such a fetish here if questions are ignored, and such unwarranted winner mentality conclusions are drawn from not answering.

I choose not to enter into a debate about Public Relation endeavors anywhere approximating what went on yesterday about Nara, and have little more to add about Gogerty Marriott.

Pilot padron,

Let’s summarize. You cannot document exactly what the PR firm did nor how much it cost. Your evidence (1A) that it did something includes Barbie Nadeau’s claim that access was managed. That alone makes your claims worthy of skepticism, inasmuch as her errors have been a topic of conversation here many times. I have to wonder further whether or not her own access decreased once the family noticed that her errors always made Amanda and Raffaele look worse. Your comment (1B) is a good example of what I call the argument from intellectual intimidation: “any reasonable person…” The choice you leave your reader is either to agree with you or to be thought unreasonable. I won’t be drawn into choosing between those false alternatives. Your bringing in Charlie Wilkes is mere deflection. You have made claims that you cannot support.

You will not discuss the problems with Nara’s testimony. A “reasonable person” might take her mistakes into evidence along with Frank’s words, Paul’s words, and Oggi’s claim in trying to assess her mental functioning. With respect to “refusing to admit” the supposed lack of credibility to Oggi’s and Paul’s claims, I did not make those claims, and I don’t feel any need to repudiate or to support claims I did not make in the first place.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

let us know what you learn

I do not regard Frank or Candance as independent, as I said I want to reduce bias as much as possible.

CoulsdonUK,

Which sources you consider to be independent or not is your own business. My advice is that you do your own research into Giobbi's testimony. Then I would be interested in hearing your interpretation of it.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Unhinged? That's definitely the pot calling the kettle black

So, Bruce, Set me straight here. I believe all your articles about PMF, in certain newspapers, were taken down, because....they were scurrilous, yes? You don;t want to go there, you really don't.

Of course you find Oggi, Paul and Candace credible. It suits your agenda.

Poor Frank. Thrown under the bus.

Your statement is completely false. I had an article removed from Technorati because Peggy Ganong went ballistic posting upwards of 100 comments on the article and sending a series of emails to the editor. As it turns out, Technorati prefers to avoid controversy so they removed the article. The article was also removed from Gather. Gather has a policy that you cannot say anything negative about any other Gather member. Its a very simple policy. Peggy Ganong joined Gather, so my article was then directed at a member of Gather, so it then violated their user agreement. Peggy has gone to great lengths to silence the truth but it won't work. Everything I have written about is 100% true and fully documented. Why won't Peggy have a conversation with me? The answer is simple, she knows her actions are indefensible.

The article that you are referring to is currently available on several websites. You can go to www.injusticeinperugia.org for links to all of my articles.

You seem to have great affection for Frank. Does this mean that you agree with Frank? I don't know if you are aware but he believes that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent. Your position is very odd. You thought you saw an angle to attack FOAkers but in reality your argument is pointless. Instead of admitting that your argument is pointless, you have decided to go on a Ganong style rant.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

CoulsdonUK,

Which sources you consider to be independent or not is your own business. My advice is that you do your own research into Giobbi's testimony. Then I would be interested in hearing your interpretation of it.

Halides1

Thank you for the unsolicited advice.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

mental health

Although I do not necessarily agree with the reason that *you tell me* Machine used, I would submit that there always is the possibility (admittedly remote) that the Appeal might just end up with what the Prosecution wants.
Same result but different reason

I find it reasonable to accept the fact that one who senselessly murders another just might be assumed to be in something less than perfect mental health.
In fact is not this the most used defense ?

Pilot padron,

Your comment that the appeal might actually increase Amanda’s and Raffaele’s sentences is not germane to the point that I raised, which is that more than one commenter at PMF speculates about Amanda’s and Raffaele’s mental health, without foundation. Given that the conviction is what this thread contests, using the conviction as evidence for lack of mental health is not convincing, IMO.

However, the subject is worth exploring. Let me quote from The Machine, “I'm not sure Knox and Sollecito will ever be released from prison. I think there's a very strong possibility that they will both become even more mentally unstable and be certified as insane. The Italian authorities have a responsibility to protect the public.” Now let us juxtapose this with Popper’s comment, “I have argued in the past that if she does not eventually admit we may really start to think she is mentally ill as she would be going strongly against her interest. In the past only very disturbed people have not eventually admitted some guilt.” This boggles the mind: Amanda’s not admitting guilt would be reason to hold her indefinitely.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

if you think that both Frank and Candace are wrong, please provide evidence

Raffaele and Amanda were out eating pizza I think, Raffaele got a call from the police asking him to come in to clear up a few points from his statement, Amanda decided to go with him. During Raffaele’s interview he changed his previous statement; in the mean time the police took advantage of the situation presented to them and started speaking to Amanda.

CoulsdonUK,

I am asking you to back up your version, which you have so far entirely failed to do. Your use of the phrase "took advantage of the situation" implies the opposite of a pre-planned interrogation of Amanda. There is nothing in your version that acknowledges that Dr. Giobbi said to bring them both in. I have given you two sources, and you have provided no evidence to the contrary. There is nothing in your version that acknowledges how many police were waiting for them, as kaosium has pointed out.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

ROME — In Italy, you’re nobody if your phone isn’t tapped. Or, as Beppe Grillo, Italy’s leading political provocateur and blogger, put it: “This is a nation where if you can’t be blackmailed, you’ll never get ahead.”

An Untapped Phone Call in Italy? It’s Possible

Mary

Do you know whether wiretapping is legal or not in Italy??