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

[Sherlock Holmes]

Nope, a couple of 20 year olds making faces at each other or Amanda knocking on Meredith's door is not strange either.

Men dressing like women is strange. Guys and girls with piercings in their chin is strange. There is this guy who I've seen on Broadway with surgically implanted spikes in his head. Guy wearing leather chaps and women wearing dog collars and leashes and ball gags is strange.

I've yet to hear about any behavior of Amanda or Raffaele as strange or suspicious.

It's not the knocking on Meredith's door and yelling Meredith's name that is strange, the strange and suspicious part is what happens about a half hour later.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

What possible interest could it have, then, if even you admit it had nothing to do with the murder? You do realize, don't you, that this is the reason she was arrested!?

Or is it of interest to pull some random person out of a crowd and ridicule them for weird behaviour?

Keep in mind, she may not have murdered anyone, but I do believe she is involved to some extent.
Are you saying, she was arrested only because she acted strange and suspicious.

 

[Bill Williams]

Keep in mind, she may not have murdered anyone, but I do believe she is involved to some extent.
Are you saying, she was arrested only because she acted strange and suspicious.

Sheesh. You're joking, right?

It's not me who says that, it is the people who arrested her who say that.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20000577-504083.html

How did Italian police target Knox and Sollecito so quickly? One answer came three months after the arrests. In February 2008, 48 Hours met with Fabio Giobbi, a department head at the Via Tuscolana offices of the forensic police.

Giobbi told 48 Hours he was proud that Knox and Sollecito were arrested before fingerprints, blood, footprints, or DNA were analyzed by his office. Instead, Giobbi explained, the case was solved simply by observing Amanda Knox's behavior.

And what was suspicious about Knox's behavior? What gave her guilt away? Giobbi pointed to three incidents.

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

That is the case against Amanda Knox, and apparently Sollecito for conspiring to eat a pizza.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Sheesh. You're joking, right?

It's not me who says that, it is the people who arrested her who say that.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20000577-504083.html



1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

That is the case against Amanda Knox, and apparently Sollecito for conspiring to eat a pizza.

Well, as I said, me and others found her acting strange and suspiciously, thanks, that's all I was saying.

 

[JREF2010]

I can't tell you how clueless people are at reading what is going on with other people. Every time you think you know, they prove you wrong.

I'll admit I thought Patrick was guilty at first, after reading the media articles.
The fact he changed sim cards right after the murder timeframe and the media said his cell logs were picked up by the cottage, and he had no alibi. Judge Matteini eventually condemned him too as a real pervert murderer.

Nancy Grace just had two cases where the police went after the wrong suspects, one case for 14 months, and lost valuable time. One case the police were found to have been framing the innocent parents who were wrongly accused of a crime to their own child who was kidnapped.

I understand in the beginning the detectives have to filter a lot of people out, and remain open minded.....but apparently its not uncommon the detectives take the wrong path and the prosecutor can become bullheaded and at times corrupt.

 

[Bill Williams]

Well, as I said, me and others found her acting strange and suspiciously, thanks, that's all I was saying.

Suspiciously? How? Do you agree with Giobbi or don't you? Sheesh.

 

[Wildhorses]

Dear Coulsdon,

I am behind on lurking and will probably never catch up. But a few of your posts caught my eye.

Months ago, you predicted the Supreme Court would not accept Hellman's ruling. Why? If I recall correctly, it was because: A) the author of the prosecution appeal was a former SC judge; B) Mignini had been promoted; and C) the author was now Mignini's boss.

I interpreted your reasons as meaning the author (whose name I've forgotten) knew how to work the system; was known and presumably respected by his former SC colleagues; and, moreover, had access to the person and views of Mignini, who, by virtue of his promotion, can be considered a rising star.

But now, you seem to be downplaying the "good old boy network" factors you based your prediction on -- and, instead, speaking as though the SC decision was strictly a matter of application of the law and Hellman's failures. I'm confused. I thought you'd been quite clear about your expectation that positions and connections -- not legalities -- guaranteed the outcome.

ALSO when the SC report was first released, I'm pretty sure you said more than once that, in your opinion, the report had made the next judge's job easier. By that, I assumed you meant the report had dictated the next verdict. Evidently, I was wrong... so what did you mean?

Please forgive me for not looking up your posts and quoting them. I only have a minute to post. But I am curious. As you know, I was impressed by your prediction.

 

[RandyN]

Wow, you got a lot of mileage out of this one, Sherlock!

Don't you wonder why this is the information we happen to have about what was going on at the Questura? I think it's because the other young adults who were there were asked leading questions in their interviews with Mignini. Just as Mignini led Amanda to say she had heard a scream, he led the others to address whether they had noticed anything different or unusual about Amanda. It's only natural they would search their memories for the oddest five minutes out of the hours they were there.

We're all capable of it -- your neighbor gets arrested for domestic violence and suddenly you say, "Come to think of it, I did notice something weird about him," even though it's something you never reflected on until the guy was suspected of something else.

If Filomena had been arrested, Mignini would have asked the others if they had noticed anything unusual about Filomena that day, and no doubt they would have come up with something (irrelevant) about her.

Yes we hear about and see endless replay of the kiss...but why is it that no one shows Filomena with her hand in her BF back pocket outside the cottage while all the police are investigating this crime? How could she be grieving with her hand on her BF behind? There is a picture somewhere. Hans surly has it and Rose probably does too...BTW...that is not strange behavior either.

The strange behavior is arresting people with no evidence. Interrogating them with no recording or record. Burning up 4 hard drives. Refusing to grant the defendants their lawfully required attorneys...not just during interrogation but for days after being held in solitary confinement ...denied access to lawyers right up until the hearing in front of Migninis good friend Claudia Mattini. Denied lawyers in spite of Italian law that requires access to these lawyers.

These are strange behaviors. These are things that the press and skeptics should be questioning. Or perhaps they should question why Lumumba was arrested on the "word" of an scared foreign youngster. Or perhaps someone should examine why Lumumbas bar and livelihood was kept closed by police for months after Lumumba was cleared of any wrongdoing. Or why Toto failed to come forward until a year later. Or why Quintinvale told the cops he saw nothing a few days after the crime but then a year later he "remembers" Knox in his store??? Or isnt it strange that Kokomaniac saw Knox and her uncle a month before she ever arrived in Europe? Arent these strange behaviors in a court of law? How is it that Knox is charged with a crime for "lying" about Lumumba but that 10 other prosecution people are free to lie, cheat or steal and Mignini takes no action against them? That seems damn strange.

Oddly none of this strange behavior is looked into. No one finds it newsworthy that Mignini files sub-case charges against reporters, newspapers, lawyers, defendants and even the defendants families??? 2 dozen or more sub-cases? 30 thousand wire taps against a defendants family? And no raised eyebrows? Guede who clearly murdered raped and robbed Miss Kercher gets 16 years and no one appeals that light sentence? Do I smell a copped deal?

Solid DNA evidence! Oh wait. Honest testimony by scientific police. Oh wait?
Ever changing TOD. Hired and fired pathologist. Scientific laboratory head hired as consultant to prosecution...here we call that an illegal conflict of interest....in Italy they yawn. ALL damn strange behaviors but ones that cant seem to catch the interest of investigative reporters or the general public. How about the missing photo evidence of "glass on top"? Or the missing outside wall photo evidence? Or the glossed over blood evidence from downstairs? I could do this for hours...and not have to make up anything...the absurdities are abundant. Comically abundant...but yet there is nothing funny about it at all. Sad, corrupt, wrong, punitive,life destroying...but nothing funny. Sad that the families must be bankrupted financially and spiritually but that there appears no recourse to compensate the innocent for the bumbling, lying, corrupt, stupid, behavior of the Italians.

Sherlock...present your evidence of how Knox was involved, describe that involvement and provide the facts that show that involvement or else please STHU. Thanks.

 

[Bill Williams]

Dear Coulsdon,

I am behind on lurking and will probably never catch up. But a few of your posts caught my eye.

Months ago, you predicted the Supreme Court would not accept Hellman's ruling. Why? If I recall correctly, it was because: A) the author of the prosecution appeal was a former SC judge; B) Mignini had been promoted; and C) the author was now Mignini's boss.

I interpreted your reasons as meaning the author (whose name I've forgotten) knew how to work the system; was known and presumably respected by his former SC colleagues; and, moreover, had access to the person and views of Mignini, who, by virtue of his promotion, can be considered a rising star.

But now, you seem to be downplaying the "good old boy network" factors you based your prediction on -- and, instead, speaking as though the SC decision was strictly a matter of application of the law and Hellman's failures. I'm confused. I thought you'd been quite clear about your expectation that positions and connections -- not legalities -- guaranteed the outcome.

ALSO when the SC report was first released, I'm pretty sure you said more than once that, in your opinion, the report had made the next judge's job easier. By that, I assumed you meant the report had dictated the next verdict. Evidently, I was wrong... so what did you mean?

Please forgive me for not looking up your posts and quoting them. I only have a minute to post. But I am curious. As you know, I was impressed by your prediction.

In fairness, Wildhorses, CoulsdonUK was getting his information from Peter Quennell's "True Justice for Meredith Kercher" website. Quennell has run a multi-year PR campaign against EVERYTHING to do with Ms. Knox and Mr Sollecito, and anyone who has supported them.

Quennell quite rightly predicted the ISC reversal of the Hellmann acquittals. Yet he was pooh-poohed for suggesting that Galati's appeal brief was based mainly on appeals to review of evidence something the ISC was not supposed to even be considering.

CoulsdonUK has said his main reason for posting is to keep Meredith's memory front and centre, while the whole world goes ga-ga about Amanda Knox. He's resisted actually expressing an opinion on the two innocents and what they should "get", although he also summarizes the case in barest terms - the things he quotes are the decisions and seems mystified that anyone would comment beyond that - for instance with all the concern about whether or not the ISC overstepped its bounds, he asked for commentary if this decision was unique or if there are other similarly (claimed) controversial decisions.

He seems unphased by Italy leading the league in appeals to the European Court of Human Rights.

But this business of claiming that the Hellmann decision would fall to "Galati's connections" is not really CoulsdonUK's. It comes from Quennell. In my view it has put them into a bit of a double bind. They have to claim that Italy is a non-corrupt system, all except Hellmann and Zanetti, who others claim accepted Masonic bribes to let Knox and Sollecito go. They claim to even know the amount of the bribe to the nearest Euro.

I think CoulsdonUK merely passes on what he reads at TJMK. I suppose that's not much of a criticism, because few of us possess first hand information anyway, and are victims of our own confirmation biases and such.

He and Mary_H agreed on something a few pages back. I almost feel over.

 

[Methos]

Yes we hear about and see endless replay of the kiss...but why is it that no one shows Filomena with her hand in her BF back pocket outside the cottage while all the police are investigating this crime? How could she be grieving with her hand on her BF behind? There is a picture somewhere. Hans surly has it and Rose probably does too...BTW...that is not strange behavior either.
[...]

This one?

 

[Antony]

It's not the knocking on Meredith's door and yelling Meredith's name that is strange, the strange and suspicious part is what happens about a half hour later.

No it isn't. There is nothing strange or suspicious about anything that Amanda or Raff did, at any time.

If you want "strange and suspicious", try looking at the actions and statements of the police and prosecution:

• choosing to interview Amanda and Raff late at night and interrogating Amanda until 5:45am;
• suppressing the recordings of the critical interviews of their 3 main suspects, then claiming they were not made;
• describing Amanda's false confession as "facts we knew to be correct";
• wrecking at least 3 computers so thoroughly that information cannot be retrieved;
• staging conjuring tricks to produce 2 crucial pieces of evidence;
• intimidating witnesses, defendants and the defendants' families with unjustified police and court actions;

The above is just a taster. The list goes on and on, to repeat a phrase you used earlier.

Why is it that you and others paw over Amanda's reactions to the tragedy for signs of guilt, yet swallow all of the above as supposedly the work of an honest police force and prosecutor?

 

[RoseMontague]

This one?
[qimg]http://amanda-knox.wikispaces.com/file/view/peopleoutsidecottage.jpg/440548912/peopleoutsidecottage.jpg[/qimg]

Oh My. She's a witch, burn her.

 

[Wildhorses]

That's right, and sitting on Raff's lap, making faces and sticking tongues out at one another while everyone around is grieving and in tears, not strange at all, it's just Amanda being Amanda.

You know young'uns do that sort of thing in the early stage of a love affair. Oxytocin is a powerful substance.

Obviously, they wouldn't have dared do it if they were slightest bit guilty.

 

[RoseMontague]

Following the link tied to that photo, we find this...

"Luca Altieri, a friend of Romanelli’s boyfriend, who had arrived on the scene with him, agreed to break down the door. Luca was a big young man. Six hard kicks and a shoulder, he estimated later, broke it down."
Burleigh, Nina (2011). The Fatal Gift of Beauty: The Trials of Amanda Knox (Kindle Locations 530-532). Broadway. Kindle Edition.

and also this

"Luca bent down to look through the keyhole but all he could glimpse was part of a bed and a wall. He first tried ramming his shoulder against the door. He tried again, several times. It didn't budge. He then started kicking it, aiming at the door handle, again and again, half a dozen kicks in all."
John Follain, Death in Perugia (page 72, kindle position 1146).

This gives a rather different impression from Massei. Several attempts with his shoulder, then six kicks, and Luca is "a big young man".

So perhaps it's not so implausible after all that Raffaele failed to break down the door, but Luca succeeded.

Yet Massei says....

strangely, however, he had not persisted in his effort to break down the door, which had suffered only a scratch, and notwithstanding that he had not been able to offer genuine resistance to a greater and effective determination – as is evidenced by the fact that Luca Altieri, a little later, had been able to force it with a kick and a blow from his shoulder – he had not tried again to force the door."

LOL. You think Massei is being a bit disingenuous here?

http://amanda-knox.wikispaces.com/Force-Door

It seems both Massei and Sherlock are on the same strange and amusing page here. To me, it seems that there was quite a bit of effort required to finish breaking that door down.

 

[Wildhorses]

The door thing has always struck me as ridiculous. Raff and Lucca's circumstances were entirely different.

The police and Filomena told Lucca to break down the door. Raffaele didn't have that kind of permission. Of course, he used less force.

 

[acbytesla]

About the only thing Sherlock I would agree with about Amanda and her and Raffaele is that they stood out. Is it really unusual that they quickly determined that the only NON-ITALIAN as a suspect? Picking the stranger out of a the group is so typical for police it is almost cliche.

Not that anything they did was "strange". Just that the police were LAZY and prided themselves on intuition. This really tells you more about the detectives and the police than it does about Amanda and Raffaele. They were STUPID. These investigators are MORONS. They determine and locked onto the idea that the scene is staged. Not that they had any evidence that it was staged. Then they continued to misread the evidence. I have to wonder at what point did they seize upon Raffaele's shoes. I bet that was VERY DAMNING in their mind. If that was really a match to Raffaele's shoes, I would be 100 percent convinced of Raffaele's involvement.

I don't think a damn thing that Amanda and Raffaele did was suspicious or strange. Maybe both of them are unique people, but that is a good thing. Strange??? NO.

 

[acbytesla]

Well, as I said, me and others found her acting strange and suspiciously, thanks, that's all I was saying.

Others may have found that she was acting strangely and suspiciously, but that doesn't mean they were. There is nothing suspicious about eating a pizza with her boyfriend or Amanda sobbing over Meredith's death, or rushing to put on the booties.

Giobbi is an IDIOT.

 

[Briars]

Others may have found that she was acting strangely and suspiciously, but that doesn't mean they were. There is nothing suspicious about eating a pizza with her boyfriend or Amanda sobbing over Meredith's death, or rushing to put on the booties.

Giobbi is an IDIOT.

Yes it was absolutely normal to put on the booties and pronounce a loud 'tah dah'. She explained it was to lighten the mood.

 

[Briars]

This one?
[qimg]http://amanda-knox.wikispaces.com/file/view/peopleoutsidecottage.jpg/440548912/peopleoutsidecottage.jpg[/qimg]

Here is an example of a petite woman who couldn't comfortably reach around her her tall boyfriends waist. You are grasping here. Even Sollecito wrote Amanda's behavior made him uncomfortable at the Questura.

 

[acbytesla]

Yes it was absolutely normal to put on the booties and pronounce a loud 'tah dah'. She explained it was to lighten the mood.

That's right Briars, it is absolutely normal. Tell me what is normal about anything involving having your roommate being murdered? The whole thing must have felt entirely surreal. So that was as normal as anything else. Maybe it wasn't appropriate. But it was ABSOLUTELY NORMAL.

Have you ever been to a murder scene Briars? I'm not a police officer, but I have at least a dozen friends on the Seattle Police Department. Two of whom are detectives, and one of whom is a homicide detective. Cops in a big city go to lots of scenes where people have died. Some murder scenes and there are lots of jokes told in these macabre environments. I've seen lots of pictures of cops standing over dead bodies posing and laughing. So you tell me what is ABSOLUTELY NORMAL.