Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[davefoc]

Very good thus far. Nice photography of Perugia; nice clips of Mr. Preston and Frank Sfarzo, getting to Mignini and Monster of Florence connection.

I am happy to see the mainstream media begin to reveal what's gone on here, but it really grated that Sollecito is barely mentioned, like it somehow doesn't matter that he's facing a life sentence for something he didn't do.

 

[Dougm]

I am happy to see the mainstream media begin to reveal what's gone on here, but it really grated that Sollecito is barely mentioned, like it somehow doesn't matter that he's facing a life sentence for something he didn't do.

Yeah, the poor guy is the true innocent victim in all this (down guilters, I think that Meredith is definitely a poor victim too, in the worst way). All he wanted to do is enjoy college life, get stoned, have a girlfriend, eat pizza, and get his degree. Instead he got sucked into this case, and the evidence against him is so scant it is amazing that he is in the case at all.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Isn't it funny how these guilters start out pretending to be neutral, starting out passive, but at the end of the day they can't hide their aggression. Maundy is a perfect example of this. He wanted to create this impression that he was on the fence, but as the appeal went on he became more and more convinced of guilt....Ya right!

He's also as dumb as dumb gets.

Glad for these comments. He has always kind of scared me, but I guess any fear was irrational on my part. It seems the Knox/Sollecito case is not a neutral event; in any case, I find pro and contra but never neutrality in any postings or blog pieces. I really just wish the verdict would have stayed at Saturday...

 

[Kestrel]

Yeah, the poor guy is the true innocent victim in all this (down guilters, I think that Meredith is definitely a poor victim too, in the worst way). All he wanted to do is enjoy college life, get stoned, have a girlfriend, eat pizza, and get his degree. Instead he got sucked into this case, and the evidence against him is so scant it is amazing that he is in the case at all.

An interview with investigator Giobbi revealed that it was Raffaele's love of pizza that led to his downfall.

The third incident, according to Giobbi, was the most disturbing. It occurred when the police picked up Rafaele Sollecito for questioning, three days after Kercher's body was discovered. Police located Sollecito at a cafe. It was three in the afternoon and Sollecito was eating a pizza. But Sollecito wasn't alone. Amanda Knox was also sharing the pizza. This so-called "meeting" helped convince Giobbi the couple had acted together in the murder.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Yeah, the poor guy is the true innocent victim in all this (down guilters, I think that Meredith is definitely a poor victim too, in the worst way). All he wanted to do is enjoy college life, get stoned, have a girlfriend, eat pizza, and get his degree. Instead he got sucked into this case, and the evidence against him is so scant it is amazing that he is in the case at all.

He was nothing if not unlucky in love. He has a girlfriend for 6 days, his first real girlfriend, and look at him now. Of course I would love to see him freed as well, and I think many people are rooting for him as much as Amanda, but her million dollar PR campaign mayhap obscured him?

 

[RoseMontague]

I am happy to see the mainstream media begin to reveal what's gone on here, but it really grated that Sollecito is barely mentioned, like it somehow doesn't matter that he's facing a life sentence for something he didn't do.

You are now my favorite poster. Free Raffaele!!!!

 

[smkovalinksy]

An interview with investigator Giobbi revealed that it was Raffaele's love of pizza that led to his downfall.

It is an absurd conclusion; they must have been so certain that the pair were part of the crime, that the eating of pizza together later was seen as their ongoing solidarity regarding it. Otherwise, the eating of pizza together by a boy and his girlfriend is obviously innocuous. The question is, why were they so sure, in their own minds, regarding those 2???

There are 3 reasons listed within the piece, but I presume one had to have been their to feel the impact of said incidents???

The first "suspicious" Knox incident took place at the crime scene. Giobbi told Knox that he was going to the house next door to talk with people there and ask if anyone witnessed anything unusual the night of the murder. Immediately after hearing that, Amanda Knox broke down, sobbing uncontrollably. Giobbi thought Knox's reaction was troubling because there are no houses next door to the crime scene. So why was she so emotional? Giobbi believes it was because Knox had a guilty conscious.

The second incident happened when Giobbi asked Knox to follow him into the apartment below the crime scene. Both Giobbi and Knox had to put protective covers over their shoes before entering. Knox got hers on first, and then showed off that fact by performing a hula-hoop motion with her hands on her hips and bragging about how she quick she'd been. To Giobbi, Knox's inappropriate, girlish behavior wasn't a sign of immaturity, but rather a peek inside the craven heart of a killer.

The third incident, according to Giobbi, was the most disturbing. It occurred when the police picked up Rafaele Sollecito for questioning, three days after Kercher's body was discovered. Police located Sollecito at a cafe. It was three in the afternoon and Sollecito was eating a pizza. But Sollecito wasn't alone. Amanda Knox was also sharing the pizza. This so-called "meeting" helped convince Giobbi the couple had acted together in the murder.

 

[bolint]

An interview with investigator Giobbi revealed that it was Raffaele's love of pizza that led to his downfall.

Interestingly, but not unexpectedly, the source of this pizza story and alleged interview is none other than Paul Ciolino.

During the panel discussion, Ciolino retold the story of his meeting with Giobbi during his investigation, “Guy who arrested Amanda ‘I said to him, ‘you don’t have any physical evidence, you don’t have eyewitnesses, you don’t have a murder weapon, what do you got?’ Tell me…convince my why this girl did this?”

According to Ciolino, officer Giobbi only needed to know one thing to determine guilt, “He says, ‘I’ll tell you why…….she was eating pizza!”.

 

[davefoc]

Glad for these comments. He has always kind of scared me, but I guess any fear was irrational on my part. It seems the Knox/Sollecito case is not a neutral event; in any case, I find pro and contra but never neutrality in any postings or blog pieces. I really just wish the verdict would have stayed at Saturday...

When I had a less informed view of the case I saw the lack of neutral views on this as the result of a lack of critical thinking by both sides. It seemed very unlikely that the evidence could be so strong one way or the other to support an objective view that one side or the other was right when there seemed to be so much controversy.

But I think I fell into the trap of believing that the roughly equal amount of pro and innocent reporting that filtered down to a person not all that interested in the case was a reasonable representation of the underlying facts.

Under closer inspection this case looked pretty much like a routine witch hunt to me. An unlikely crime scenario without any credible evidence to support it is pushed by a prosecutor with an unfalsifiable belief in his case. The McMartin school case and the prosecution of Clay Shaw are a few American examples that come to mind of this kind of thing.

 

[davefoc]

You are now my favorite poster. Free Raffaele!!!!

Holy crap, I've spent years of anonymity on the forum, never involved in any dramas, never being nominated for any awards and now this. You made my day. Forget those tacky language awards, I'll take this. Maybe it's time to update my signature.

 

[smkovalinksy]

When I had a less informed view of the case I saw the lack of neutral views on this as the result of a lack of critical thinking by both sides. It seemed very unlikely that the evidence could be so strong one way or the other to support an objective view that one side or the other was right when there seemed to be so much controversy.

But I think I fell into the trap of believing that the roughly equal amount of pro and innocent reporting that filtered down to a person not all that interested in the case was a reasonable representation of the underlying facts.

Under closer inspection this case looked pretty much like a routine witch hunt to me. An unlikely crime scenario without any credible evidence to support it is pushed by a prosecutor with an unfalsifiable belief in his case. The McMartin school case and the prosecution of Clay Shaw are a few American examples that come to mind of this kind of thing.

Yes, thank you for reminding me of the McMartin case, which was an appalling piece of projection and scapegoating, due to the pressures and internal conflicts of the new era (the daycare era). The Australian Lindy Chamberlain case also comes to mind. I do not know of Clay Shaw.

 

[bolint]

When I had a less informed view of the case I saw the lack of neutral views on this as the result of a lack of critical thinking by both sides.

It is.

 

[NewtonTrino]

I'm definitely waiting for the verdict with great anticipation.

I still think this entire thing is touch and go. I appreciate some of the analyses that I've seen and there is some pretty good thinking about why Hellman won't let this farce continue. However, given the entire situation I still think it's possible for it to go in almost any direction.

It is amazing how little Raf has been featured in the trial and in the press. It's almost like he doesn't exist. Same thing with Rudy. Newflash people, they already convicted someone for this crime! I mean seriously, WTF.

 

[Dougm]

It is.

I thought so too, initially. And I have never before seen a criminal case where I am so certain of the guilt of innocence of any of the suspects. In the past, it has always been more of a, "I think I would vote this way if I were on the jury, but I am not 100 percent sure what happened".

This one is crystal clear. They are innocent.

 

[JREF2010]

I just saw Maresca is remarking about the poor(good) versus rich (bad)..

he's a pig, a real disgusting lawyer who would even show the pictures so he could win. imo.

what kind of lawyer exploits the victims for his own "win"?

I agree NewtonTrino, there is an emotional aspect of this case that I hope doesnt cloud the logic and facts.

The prosecution is left with attacking the emotional part of the media, knowing the judges are not sequestered in Perugia, Italy....

so every emotional cry and media article is a planned attempt to reach a Judge. Mignnini too probably talking to every microphone he can, and the Defense has no choice of being silent.

But how can all this derail the C&V report, the abundance of real evidence of ONLY Rudy in that room of Merediths....ONLY Rudy...

the news and media is full force deployment to Perugia...the tool of the lawyers at this point, there will be no more DNA reviews for Hellman.


malice of the media

 

[bolint]

This one is crystal clear. They are innocent.

A lack of critical thinking.

 

[Dougm]

I'm definitely waiting for the verdict with great anticipation.

I still think this entire thing is touch and go. I appreciate some of the analyses that I've seen and there is some pretty good thinking about why Hellman won't let this farce continue. However, given the entire situation I still think it's possible for it to go in almost any direction.

It is amazing how little Raf has been featured in the trial and in the press. It's almost like he doesn't exist. Same thing with Rudy. Newflash people, they already convicted someone for this crime! I mean seriously, WTF.

I think if there actually was a PR Supertanker, they would be trumpeting this in the media. The fact that Rudy barely gets a mention is what is odd to me.

I keep reading that Meredith has been forgotten, but almost every story I read mentions her, and has at least one picture of her (which is good). But many have little to no mention of who killed her, and that he has been convicted already.

 

[Dougm]

A lack of critical thinking.

I think that coming to any other conclusion shows a lack of critical thinking. When one side only talks about behavior and side issues, and the other uses hard facts and evidence, it is pretty clear. In a debate or mock trial, this would be over in 10 minutes.

 

[smkovalinksy]

A lack of critical thinking.

So, what would be the Aristotlean mean between the extremes? That they may have been involved, but there is not enough solid evidence to convict? I harbored this thought for quite some time...

 

[RWVBWL]

Out eating pizza or out at a friends place?

Hi everyone,
I've seen it written that Raffaele and Amanda were out eating pizza when that fatefull call came in to come into the Questura for further questioing on the night of Nov. 5, 2007.

Yet Candace Dempsey had reported, on page 137 of her book 'Murder in Italy' that Raff and Amanda, trying to feel a little normal, were having dinner at a friend of Raffaele's nearby apartment.

Now this was never a big deal, but I just like to get the facts straight. So I've wondered were Raff and Amanda eating pizza at some joint on the town or were they at Raffaele's friends place? Pretty easy question, but 1 that's been hard for me to definately get an answer for.

These 2 recent posts from Kestral and RoseMontague, with hilites, have answered that question and told me where the confusion comes from:

An interview with investigator Giobbi revealed that it was Raffaele's love of pizza that led to his downfall.

The third incident, according to Giobbi, was the most disturbing. It occurred when the police picked up Rafaele Sollecito for questioning, three days after Kercher's body was discovered. Police located Sollecito at a cafe. It was three in the afternoon and Sollecito was eating a pizza. But Sollecito wasn't alone. Amanda Knox was also sharing the pizza. This so-called "meeting" helped convince Giobbi the couple had acted together in the murder.

At 3:00pm, the afternoon, Raff and Amanda were eating pizza while out on the town.

LG: So, this is the telephone call that was intercepted on Nov 5th 2007,starting at 22:29, and the first question that I will ask Amanda is: wherewere you? Maybe it's better if -- do you remember where you were at 22:29?AK: Twenty-two...wait...LG: Ten twenty-nine, ten thirty.AK: Which day?LG: The 5th.AK: On the 5th...umm...ten thirty...that would be around class time, so...LG: No, in the evening.AK: Oh, in the evening, oh, the evening! I was still at the house of theseneighbors.[Telephone call audio: loud ringing or beeping] FR: Hello?AK: Ciao bella.FR: Ciao bella, how are you? [very sweet, friendly voice]AK: [Italian noticeably less good than now, slow, yet really not so bad, not absolutely a beginner] Oh, fine. I had a good day, without police.FR: Aah...AK: But Raffaele received a "call" [in English]--FR: From whom?AK: From the police. So we umm just got here, to the Questura, for questioning.<snip>

So that night, they were indeed at a friends place,
trying to have a normal evening by having a real dinner, when that call came.
In my humble opinion, this is hardly the actions of a young couple who had just participated in their 1st murder a few days earlier, who had already had extensive questioning...
RW