Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Kaosium]

I think one simple definition of a suspect is "looks guilty". they are holding her as a suspect. guilt or innocence is only confirmed by a jury of her peers.

Only Friends really bring up the cartwheel thing and the ta da thing that much, to use a strawman that is the only reason she was a suspect. I have focused on her sex life a lot b/c she seems to be a sex addict and have some psychological issues that are exposed by the fact she is having so much sex and acting inappropriate in a sexual way in situatuions where is it clearly inappropriate and weird.

The reason innocentisti bring it up is they said so, here's Giobbi's video showing Amanda's picture mounted on their trophy wall, before he goes on to say how they didn't need evidence they knew they were guilty. He would testify in court that the 'indications' were that she went out for pizza,(instead of crying in her bed all the time) did the 'ta-da' move and broke down crying when they showed her the knives--in the cottage where her roommate was butchered with one.

What you've not yet realized (and may never appreciate) is all the reasons they had to be suspicious of her were related to crap like this or Patrick. They arrested all three of them after those statements I've recently posted and then with absolutely nothing to support it Mignini comes up with his bizarro 'hypothesis' of a Halloween sexual rite/sex game gone bad/whatever. That's what got people's attention and caused the media furor, while they claimed little but utterly false evidence like they had her on video, her handprint was on Meredith's face etc.

However the forensics would find nothing at all of the three they'd arrested at the scene, (the ridiculous 'murder knife' was found at Raffaele's and probably was nothing more than the other false 'evidence' they'd announced before and would after it) but all sorts of evidence of a local petty-burglar who'd fled the country. The bra-clasp was not 'found' until they went out to the scene six weeks after the murder as they'd been humiliated over finding the shoe-prints didn't actually match Raffaele's Nike's but were Rudy's.

But they kept their theory Mignini just made up including a 'staged' break in, and just swapped Rudy out for Patrick. How stupid is that?


It's actually that simple, and once that is figured out the case is a fascinating study of group polarization, the media smear machine, and the inability of some to accept that sometimes authorities (and societies) will scapegoat someone innocent instead of admit they were wrong.

ETA added other clip as I didn't realize the first one cut off before the part about not needing evidence during the 'investigation.'

 

[DrTesla]

Dr. Tesla - I am amazed that after providing you with the citation from a guilter author, that you still do not accept that Mignini was pushing this theory.

I think I will fade into the background now. You ask for proof. I provide it. Then you say it's not proof, and you continue to argue the point. Ok, good for you.

Like I say, you're entitled to you opinion. What I am hoping is that the casual reader here can make up their minds for themselves.

I am not here to persuade anybody to agree with my take. I am only here to tell you what I think about this case.

I will check out this guitler author, but can you just provide a quote from his or her book or article that is the money quote?

I need to take my wife and daughter out for a meal so if I do not respond quickly please do not take offense.

My daughter does not believe Knox is guilty because "she looks innocent" despite being exposed to my well reasoned case for her guilt. I think my daughter is in the defiant stage kids go through.

 

[RandyN]

this isn't evidence against her b/c it also points to her guilt, her lack of an alibi and the fact her "boyfriend" broke her alibi. throw in her odd behavior and inconsistent statements and they clearly had enough to hold her. they would deserve a jail sentence if they had not held her.

keep in mind that Knox herself admits she looks guilty in her unsolicited written declaration, and she said in court that she was not forced to write this declaration. you can't beat up on the cops for simply agreeing with her she looks guilty.

Sigh...I dont know why I am even bothering...this argument is about the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

Alibi...Knox had the exact same alibi that Filomena Romanelli did. RS never changed his story. The police asked him how he could be certain what Knox did while he was sleeping. He rather flip answered that he could not be sure.
The trouble with accepting this as a "breaking of the alibi" takes a rather simple minded person to not see past the rather plain attempt to get something...anything to start applying pressure.

The thing is at that point RS had requested and was denied access to a lawyer and or a call to his father. He should have asked if he was charged with anything and then simply got up and left. He was threatened to be beat to a pulp...that may have had something to do with his staying.

The point getting back to the false claim that the BF stopped backing her alibi is that it was a simple police trick added to the fact that the police illegally questioned the suspect without his attorney present. Had the required attorney been present during this trick question I am sure he would have reminded RS about Knox not having a key or that he was a light sleeper and would awake the moment Knox moved...see how that works when the laws are followed?

Please stop with changing alibi...that is a lie of police and prosecutor.

"She was not forced to write this declaration". I agree. The police wrote it. Knox was incapable of writing a declaration in a language she was just learning. Next illogical point please?


Looking guilty is entirely different from being proven guilty. The ILE and the prosecutor and the DNA technician all lied during the preliminary hearing. Without these lies the judge would have had no reason to order the defendants held without charge for a year btw... They had RS shoe print. Wrong. They had AK what? Cartwheels, splits, "dropped alibi" ? Right.

What they pretended to have and still do to this day is having MK DNA on area c of the knife blade...inside an invisible scratch, on a knife that doesn't match the wounds and does not match a blood imprint on the bed sheet of the actual murder weapon...but your argument ignores these elephants.

Dont worry you have lots of dumb people making the same illogical argument. But I wonder if they understand the implication of the Stefanoni lie in the prelim hearing. She claimed in that hearing that she forgot her notes but recalls that sample c (or was it b) of the "double DNA knife" had an ample amount of material...200 plus picograms IIRC. The truth was different. Fact is she had 10 picograms and maybe zero picograms...and you know why those numbers are important? Because you cant test samples of this size. At least not in 2007. And certainly not without special handling and equipment and training none of which was available to Lab tech Stefanoni. And guess who certified her work? Biondo her boss and remarkably a consultant for the prosecution.

This case would never have made it past a honest prelim...forget comparing it to other countries ...honest courts require probable cause and evidence and facts...not rumor, speculation, and intuition. Perugia operates a dirty judicial system...

I dont care if AK and RS did it. The corrupt lies and tricks pulled by police and prosecutor in this case are enough to make a finding of not guilty.

Mignini had 18 family members arrested and charged and put thru a legal nightmare in the Narducci case....the judge was forced to write a 1000 plus page motivation report as to why he found them all innocent. And guess who wants to appeal? All based on the fact that a dead mans pants appeared to not fit him well.

I am not going to run down cites for you...you are stuck in an illogical rut anyway...Google Knox case, satanic, and Carlizzi.

Gabriella Carlizzi is Mignini medium who gets her (got actually since she croaked) information from a dead priest. As for Comodis threat to quit...its in one the many books on this case...search it out.

Knox has been unfairly questioned as to why she was a suspect... exactly like questioning a rape victim why she was raped. Was it the short dress, the one too many drinks she had? Her behavior was quite normal for a 20 year old. What excuse does 60 year old Mignini have for his behavior? He seems to be corrupt or stupid...or maybe both.

It seems to me that honesty and decency have different meanings to Italians. Odd little culture.

 

[RandyN]

Um, sarcasm.......



It didn't really matter thanks to her gift, basically said the same. I think the real reason for the second one with Mignini is he was told about the first and wanted to hear it for himself, he got out of bed in the middle of the night, I bet he was pleased to say the least.

I think the reason for the second one was to allow Mignini to clean up the first one and get rid of the illegal stuff.

BTW the interp Donnino claims Mignini asked questions. How about that? And Giobbi testified he heard Knox screams during her interrogation. Just like RS wrote about in his book. He heard her screams too. Wonder why she was screaming? Tea too hot perhaps?

 

[Grinder]

Um, sarcasm.......

Back at you

It didn't really matter thanks to her gift, basically said the same. I think the real reason for the second one with Mignini is he was told about the first and wanted to hear it for himself, he got out of bed in the middle of the night, I bet he was pleased to say the least.

He was at the station. Regardless of what he wanted the law made it illegal.

 

[RandyN]

I am not here to persuade anybody to agree with my take. I am only here to tell you what I think about this case.

I will check out this guitler author, but can you just provide a quote from his or her book or article that is the money quote?

I need to take my wife and daughter out for a meal so if I do not respond quickly please do not take offense.

My daughter does not believe Knox is guilty because "she looks innocent" despite being exposed to my well reasoned case for her guilt. I think my daughter is in the defiant stage kids go through.

I think your daughter has a good "lame argument" detector.

 

[Caper]

I am not here to persuade anybody to agree with my take. I am only here to tell you what I think about this case.

I will check out this guitler author, but can you just provide a quote from his or her book or article that is the money quote?

I need to take my wife and daughter out for a meal so if I do not respond quickly please do not take offense.

My daughter does not believe Knox is guilty because "she looks innocent" despite being exposed to my well reasoned case for her guilt. I think my daughter is in the defiant stage kids go through.

I just don't understand how you can think that.

 

[Dan O.]

LOL, let's hope I don't get to the point where I am calling people too stupid to waste my time on!

Remember, this is JREF where the stupid have rights. You have to learn not to even waste time calling them stupid because that would be a personal attack and thus a violation of the rules. Move on to discussing actual facts, evidence, and science.

There is the possibility that they aren't actually stupid but simply trolling. JREF doesn't know how to define Troll so trolling isn't against the forum rules. But calling someone a troll is a personal attack so trolls are also protected here on JREF. The only way to handle trolls is to treat them the same as stupid. Ignore them and move on. Eventually they will either realize that it is stupid to play stupid or they will self destruct in some other way. My ignore list has been a mighty good predictor of former members that self destructed.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>However the forensics would find nothing at all of the three they'd arrested at the scene, (the ridiculous 'murder knife' was found at Raffaele's and probably was nothing more than the other false 'evidence' they'd announced before and would after it) but all sorts of evidence of a local petty-burglar who'd fled the country. The bra-clasp was not 'found' until they went out to the scene six weeks after the murder as they'd been humiliated over finding the shoe-prints didn't actually match Raffaele's Nike's but were Rudy's.<snip>

It has always cracked me up that they fabricated so little evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, thinking the crazy double-DNA knife and the movie star bra clasp were enough, when they could have concocted so much more! I would say it is a testament to their arrogance and conceit that they believed they could get away with one highly questionable piece of evidence against each defendant, except for the fact that those highly questionable pieces of evidence actually were convincing to the mob.

 

[JREF2010]

The reason innocentisti bring it up is they said so, here's Giobbi's video showing Amanda's picture mounted on their trophy wall, before he goes on to say how they didn't need evidence they knew they were guilty. He would testify in court that the 'indications' were that she went out for pizza,(instead of crying in her bed all the time) did the 'ta-da' move and broke down crying when they showed her the knives--in the cottage where her roommate was butchered with one.

What you've not yet realized (and may never appreciate) is all the reasons they had to be suspicious of her were related to crap like this or Patrick. They arrested all three of them after those statements I've recently posted and then with absolutely nothing to support it Mignini comes up with his bizarro 'hypothesis' of a Halloween sexual rite/sex game gone bad/whatever. That's what got people's attention and caused the media furor, while they claimed little but utterly false evidence like they had her on video, her handprint was on Meredith's face etc.

However the forensics would find nothing at all of the three they'd arrested at the scene, (the ridiculous 'murder knife' was found at Raffaele's and probably was nothing more than the other false 'evidence' they'd announced before and would after it) but all sorts of evidence of a local petty-burglar who'd fled the country. The bra-clasp was not 'found' until they went out to the scene six weeks after the murder as they'd been humiliated over finding the shoe-prints didn't actually match Raffaele's Nike's but were Rudy's.

But they kept their theory Mignini just made up including a 'staged' break in, and just swapped Rudy out for Patrick. How stupid is that?


It's actually that simple, and once that is figured out the case is a fascinating study of group polarization, the media smear machine, and the inability of some to accept that sometimes authorities (and societies) will scapegoat someone innocent instead of admit they were wrong.

ETA added other clip as I didn't realize the first one cut off before the part about not needing evidence during the 'investigation.'

You describe a "perfect storm", poor interrogation work with Napoleani and Rita, they bring in Migninni who can jump into his Satanic Cult mode with the Halloween and a American, to Edgardo's input shown in his video on Speed-Reading Facial expressions...

The earliest part of the "storm" beginning, is still mesmerizing. Its why I like Candace's book as it was the earliest and had more details, for example the family, AnnaMarie, measuring the circles of Raffales shoeprints with a compass, and performing better detective work than apparently some who do it for a living.
Edgardo Giobbis video you linked too, still shocks me today watching it, and hes from the Serious Crime Squad from Rome, a higher authority, using a superstitious/magic approach to solving murders, so strange, yes? But in a bizzare way theres a truthfulness to Giobbi, in that he truly believes in his skill of solving murders quickly, without other science.
wow?

 

[anglolawyer]

It has always cracked me up that they fabricated so little evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, thinking the crazy double-DNA knife and the movie star bra clasp were enough, when they could have concocted so much more! I would say it is a testament to their arrogance and conceit that they believed they could get away with one highly questionable piece of evidence against each defendant, except for the fact that those highly questionable pieces of evidence actually were convincing to the mob.

When someone asked Trotsky whether he thought the French Revolution a good thing, he answered that it was too early to say. Someone else said that any fool can build a bridge that won't fall down - the hard part is making one that only just won't fall down.

As a rule, I guess you want to fabricate as little as possible.

 

[Kaosium]

Knox has been on local media a bit, releasing her book and all. Tonight she was on the local public radio. It's the first time I heard more of the story of the false confession. The police told her she was there and didn't remember. They told her her boss was there because phone records showed he had called. In other words the police told her he did it and Knox was having a memory lapse about it.

It's easy to see how that kind of interrogation led to the false confession and implicating the boss.

Does that radio station have a website that might have a link to the interview?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Does that radio station have a website that might have a link to the interview?

Yeah.

http://www.kuow.org/post/waiting-be-heard-no-more-amanda-knox-speaks-out

 

[Mary_H]

When someone asked Trotsky whether he thought the French Revolution a good thing, he answered that it was too early to say. Someone else said that any fool can build a bridge that won't fall down - the hard part is making one that only just won't fall down.

As a rule, I guess you want to fabricate as little as possible.

I never thought of it that way.

 

[DrTesla]

Remember, this is JREF where the stupid have rights. You have to learn not to even waste time calling them stupid because that would be a personal attack and thus a violation of the rules. Move on to discussing actual facts, evidence, and science.

There is the possibility that they aren't actually stupid but simply trolling. JREF doesn't know how to define Troll so trolling isn't against the forum rules. But calling someone a troll is a personal attack so trolls are also protected here on JREF. The only way to handle trolls is to treat them the same as stupid. Ignore them and move on. Eventually they will either realize that it is stupid to play stupid or they will self destruct in some other way. My ignore list has been a mighty good predictor of former members that self destructed.

Deleted - this guy is trying to bait me so I personally attack then he will run to the moderator. there is a guy like this on every internet comment board, they live to see people banned.

 

[Kaosium]

Yeah.

http://www.kuow.org/post/waiting-be-heard-no-more-amanda-knox-speaks-out

Thank you.

 

[DrTesla]

I just don't understand how you can think that.

welcome, Caper. Never seen you post on here before but if you want to talk about something specific, let's do that. we will see how you do.

 

[Dan O.]

You've gotten further than I have. I could see that the tracks peter out in the common area, but some of them are close together, suggesting something other than a direct progression to the exit. I assume he may have paused to adjust his outer garments, so it would be hard for anyone on the street to get a good look at him.

I have always wondered about the "missing" shoe print between the corridor and the common area. He had to sidestep the drying rack. Do you suppose he stepped on the pink bag?

[IMGL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=597&pictureid=7859[/IMGL]I'll know more when I've had a chance to add the corridor to my Sketchup model. There does appear to be a missing footprint about where the pink bag is. It's hard to tell without the closeup. The bag probably moved when Amanda put the mop away since the door needs to be closed in order to access the mop cabinet behind. Was there too much pink there for the crack ILE professionals to see the nearby blood?


Something else I think I pointed out much earlier, in shoe print 2 there is a blood drip that is on top of the shoe print (ie: was dripped after the print was made). What I had wrong then was that the wet pant leg is the other one so would have already been further forward when the shoe making the print was lifted. This drip must have been made on a return trip thus confirming that the prints were not made on Rudy's final exit. That diluted blood is still dripping helps establish that the prints were made soon after the cleanup in the bathroom.

 

[anglolawyer]

Annella posted at IIP this interesting interview with John Douglas, containing this quote:

JD: The police knew they had negroid hairs at the crime scene. Amanda exchanged texts the night before with Patrick Lumumba, who's of African descent, like Guede (Note: Lumumba owned the bar where Amanda worked as a waitress. He told her she wasn't needed for work that night). Because the DNA evidence had not come back yet, they jumped to the conclusion the hairs belonged to Lumumba. They interrogated her accordingly. The tactics used was to have Amanda say what the police wanted. You get people to confess under this

Did they have negroid hairs at the crime scene?

 

[Kaosium]

It has always cracked me up that they fabricated so little evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, thinking the crazy double-DNA knife and the movie star bra clasp were enough, when they could have concocted so much more! I would say it is a testament to their arrogance and conceit that they believed they could get away with one highly questionable piece of evidence against each defendant, except for the fact that those highly questionable pieces of evidence actually were convincing to the mob.

I think it was more along the lines the ones who started this were clueless (Giobbi, Napoleoni, Stefanoni) or kooks like Mignini. Eventually they actually believed their own lies, or that they were justified because everyone around them believed it.