Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#11

[TorisMom003]

I found an article that says the comment from Edgardo Giobbi was done during an interview for the movie Sex, lies and the murder of Meredith Kercher. See below:

Ciolino spoke at length about a discussion he had with Edgardo Giobbi, head of the Rome police squad responsible for arresting Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. He made the now notorious remark to a documentary crew in the movie “Sex, Lies, and the Death of Meredith Kercher,” that “[W]e were able to establish guilt by carefully observing the suspects psychological and behavioral reactions during the interrogation. We didn’t need to rely on other kinds of investigation as this method enabled us to get the guilty parties in very quick time.” Incidentally, this determination of guilt was made before the police had caught the actual killer, Rudy Guede, a drifter from the Ivory Coast whose physical evidence was all over the crime scene.

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-585803

Paul Ciolinio is a well known private investigator based in Chicago. He works frequently with CBS's 48 Hours.

If one has not seen Sex, lies and the murder of Meredith Kercher, here is the video of it from youtube. Thanks to nathanjamesbaker for posting it.
Amanda Knox Documentary - Sex, Lies and the Murder of Meredith Kercher (2008) - YouTube

 

[TorisMom003]

BBM: I think Giobbi's quote is compelling both in its ability to penetrate surfaces and be correct, and its liability of rushing to judgment prior to collecting evidence. I do think there can be the pitfall of building your case in the air, and then putting the foundation of evidence beneath that. I know that many people trusted the police and prosecutor's instinct and intuition: Which is why they still believe the scenario they laid out. I can believe it as well (it resonates psychologically in some ways) but I do become frustrated when all the evidence seems to be waved away. On the other hand, I am afraid that there may be some falsehood on the other side as well (maybe irrational to think this?) and I just wish something really conclusive would tip things (but of course both sides believe it already has) - color me confused.

One of the problems with this quote is that it was given at a time when RG was not even on the radar. The three that were arrested were AK, RS and PL. Once the results from the evidence started to come in, it should have been clear to the investigators that their initial thought process was possibly flawed. Instead they appear to have just exchanged one man out for another.

 

[SMK]

Barbie Nadeau had said back in the 2009 trial, in a piece posted for The Daily Beast, that the shoeprint on the pillow (spoken about in court by Rinaldi) was Amanda's size (37) and proved that Guede had not acted alone.

Forensic expert Francesco Vinci claims all 5 shoe prints found on the pillow case can be shown to belong to Guede. (and one does wonder how in fact one print of Knox's could be found in the scuffle of Guede's feet, with no further prints of hers found). This was not disputed at trial.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/footprints-05.html

Why then does Crini reach back in time and bring up this shoe print on the pillowcase again? I hope it's because he believes it is evidence, and not just because he is hoping to resurrect a refuted past piece of evidence. Really frustrated here as once more I feel spun around and a bit duped, I suppose....ah, well....

 

[aa9511]

I guess I am trying to understand the perspective of someone who believes them guilty. As I see it, there are a few tenets of this belief that I am interested in exploring. Things like the "staged" break in.

What convinces you it was staged? Is there specific evidence that sways you, or is the fact that the prosecution asserts it good enough? If the current court rules that the break in was not staged, will you change your mind?

I understand. For me, in this case, a big thing is how the evidence as a whole adds up together.

Yes, I think it's staged. There are numerous points which help to add up to this, in my mind. It is not one thing to the exclusion of all others. It is everything together. So the order which I say some of this does not indicate that I give more importance to the first things more than the others.

-it would have been difficult, IMO, for Rudy to scale that wall and get in through the window. IMO, he would have had to have extraordinary amount of upper body strength to be able to pull up his entire body standing on the ledge on top of the first-floor window, to get to the second-floor window.
-the shutters would have had to have been open already.
-There would have been dust displaced obviously as he is going through the window, and from putting his hands on the sill.
-IMO, based on where his body position would be, he would have had to pull himself up through his arms, then sort of lunged forward through the window. I find it very hard to believe that he would have been able to not only pull up his whole bodyweight, but then somehow balance and somehow get one leg up on the sill, to then be able to climb in.
-the glass on the windowsill, it is not disturbed. It seems someone coming through the window would have necessarily had to disturb that glass. And also how would Rudy have been able to put his hands around there without getting all cut up on his hands, and thus leaving evidence of blood around that area?
-How did he do any of the above and also open the inner shutter at the same time?
-why is their glass on top of things?
-why would Rudy care about her ladies' clothes, apparently lookiing for something valuable hiding within her clothes, but leave actual valuable things untouched?
-in the wardrobe, it obviously appears as though there are only clothes on those shelves from which the clothes are strewn about. What was he looking for in there?
-someone obviously dumped stuff out of the wardrobe. There is no reason Filomena would have done that, for glass to be on top of things.


-Then, there is the whole issue of the things taken and why only cash taken (phones and keys are murder-related, iMO). I understand that maybe it was burglary-gone-aborted, I have issues with that which I addressed in my last reply to you.
- On top of that you have mixed Amanda/Meredith DNA in Filomena room.
-On top of that, lies from Amanda and RS.
etc.etc......

It is not just one thing here or one thing there, I think of this case as a whole, and IMO all the pieces fit together as a whole.

I hope this helps, I'm sure others have a lot to add to this.

Pictures from: http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/album.php?album_id=49

 

[SMK]

One of the problems with this quote is that it was given at a time when RG was not even on the radar. The three that were arrested were AK, RS and PL. Once the results from the evidence started to come in, it should have been clear to the investigators that their initial thought process was possibly flawed. Instead they appear to have just exchanged one man out for another.

Well, exchanging Lumumba for Guede might possibly be believable, if you have some hardcore evidence that the scenario "dreamed up" by Knox may contain elements of truth.

I think the investigators had faith in her story psychologically. How dreadful it must have been when Patrick began to vanish from the story--- and how pleasant to have Guede to put in his place. If we have faith in the police, we see this as reasonable. If we suspect them, it looks like monkey business.

At bottom, the police's faith must be bolstered with evidence, and this is why I am sifting madly through all, trying to find if there is any (Crini says there is) which really stands up to scrutiny.

 

[SMK]

I understand. For me, in this case, a big thing is how the evidence as a whole adds up together.

Yes, I think it's staged. There are numerous points which help to add up to this, in my mind. It is not one thing to the exclusion of all others. It is everything together. So the order which I say some of this does not indicate that I give more importance to the first things more than the others.

-it would have been difficult, IMO, for Rudy to scale that wall and get in through the window. IMO, he would have had to have extraordinary amount of upper body strength to be able to pull up his entire body standing on the ledge on top of the first-floor window, to get to the second-floor window.
-the shutters would have had to have been open already.
-There would have been dust displaced obviously as he is going through the window, and from putting his hands on the sill.
-IMO, based on where his body position would be, he would have had to pull himself up through his arms, then sort of lunged forward through the window. I find it very hard to believe that he would have been able to not only pull up his whole bodyweight, but then somehow balance and somehow get one leg up on the sill, to then be able to climb in.
-the glass on the windowsill, it is not disturbed. It seems someone coming through the window would have necessarily had to disturb that glass. And also how would Rudy have been able to put his hands around there without getting all cut up on his hands, and thus leaving evidence of blood around that area?
-How did he do any of the above and also open the inner shutter at the same time?
-why is their glass on top of things?
-why would Rudy care about her ladies' clothes, apparently lookiing for something valuable hiding within her clothes, but leave actual valuable things untouched?
-in the wardrobe, it obviously appears as though there are only clothes on those shelves from which the clothes are strewn about. What was he looking for in there?
-someone obviously dumped stuff out of the wardrobe. There is no reason Filomena would have done that, for glass to be on top of things.


-Then, there is the whole issue of the things taken and why only cash taken (phones and keys are murder-related, iMO). I understand that maybe it was burglary-gone-aborted, I have issues with that which I addressed in my last reply to you.
- On top of that you have mixed Amanda/Meredith DNA in Filomena room.
-On top of that, lies from Amanda and RS.
etc.etc......

It is not just one thing here or one thing there, I think of this case as a whole, and IMO all the pieces fit together as a whole.

I hope this helps, I'm sure others have a lot to add to this.

BBM: Yes, I think this is why the police could not let go of the idea of Knox and Sollectio as suspects, and why , frustrated as I am, I have a hard time not seeing it through to the very end as well.

There are explanations and counter-arguments for much of the little bits and pieces. Yet there are so many little pieces which somehow do not completely go away - and they do add up over time.

 

[TorisMom003]

Well, exchanging Lumumba for Guede might possibly be believable, if you have some hardcore evidence that the scenario "dreamed up" by Knox may contain elements of truth.

I think the investigators had faith in her story psychologically. How dreadful it must have been when Patrick began to vanish from the story--- and how pleasant to have Guede to put in his place. If we have faith in the police, we see this as reasonable. If we suspect them, it looks like monkey business.

At bottom, the police's faith must be bolstered with evidence, and this is why I am sifting madly through all, trying to find if there is any (Crini says there is) which really stands up to scrutiny.

Without knowing what truly took place during all of the interrogations or questioning (if one prefers to not use the word interrogated) of AK and RS, then one can't really determine if the police were accurate in their opinions about how PL's name came into play or how the accusation came about. One can want to believe in the police, however when they hide their own doings then one does begin to question them and their practices.

It looks very badly on the police and the entire investigation that they had to go back to the cottage 46 days later to retrieve more evidence to test. The bra clasp was seen and photographed when Meredith was found. The same goes for her red/white Puma sneakers and her jacket that was found with the sleeves inside out and covered in blood. The police must explain why those items were not collected in a timely fashion, say the night they collected other items to be tested. It makes it appear that the original evidence collected did not result in the findings they needed to get a conviction for AK and RS. And as we have found out, the only things that pointed to AK and RS (hallway footprints and bra clasp) were in fact collected/discovered during that second look at the cottage 46 days later.

Of course a prosecuting attorney is going to claim that the evidence is good and that it points to the person/people on trial. If a case has gone as far as a trial then the prosecuting attorney believes that they are correct. However, the evidence that has been presented against AK and RS is questionable to say the least, IMO. There is video of the bra clasp being retrieved that shows how contamination could have occured. The cottage was trashed by investigators before the luminol testing was done. The mattress that was in Meredith's room was put in the living room on the couch. The other items were put in the hallway. The entire scene shows a lack of professionalism, IMO, and calls into question any evidence that was collected at the time.

MOO

 

[Katody]

Yes and in lone wolf scenario he is in the house almost an hour and half. Time is of the essence for a burglar. Even if he attacked Meredith shortly after she arrived, he would've stayed in the house for like 45mins after. Makes no sense he had no idea when someone else would've returned home and what was he doing, not collecting things from other rooms? 45mins is a long time!

Hour and a half? What are you basing this on? I think he leaves immediately after the stabbing and sexual assault is finished. This makes much more sense in the lone wolf scenario and is confirmed by the evidence.


Getting back to the clean up reconstruction for a moment:
Do you think the bathmat print was made by tracking blood from the murder room, and that trail was later cleaned up?

 

[aa9511]

Yes and in lone wolf scenario he is in the house almost an hour and half. Time is of the essence for a burglar. Even if he attacked Meredith shortly after she arrived, he would've stayed in the house for like 45mins after. Makes no sense he had no idea when someone else would've returned home and what was he doing, not collecting things from other rooms? 45mins is a long time!

Yes, it seems odd to me that he would not take the extra few seconds to quickly look around Amanda and Laura's rooms. I also note that Amanda in her book says that she brought this point up to Laura and Filomena when they met up at a friend's house and were going through scenerios of what happened and they were all posing questions and trying to figure out what happened. I'm sorry, I don't have the page number. It is from Amanda's text version of her book, in the chapter relating to the several days after the murder. I think Amanda brought it up because she had probably heard people by then pose that question, and she wanted to make it seem like she was also very confused about the whole situation. She knew people might question that, and so she wanted to bring up the point herself around Laura and Filomena, so they would not find anything suspicious about her because she was also pointing out inconsistencies in the crime scene. Just like people now think, "well why would she bring it up if she were guilty." That is precisely why she brought it up, IMO.

 

[aa9511]

I think much of the material and evidence can lend itself easily to the lone wolf scenario.

It's believable that Guede may have broken into an empty cottage, and assuming it would stay empty as it was the holiday weekend, and the boys downstairs and most/all of the girls were presumed to be away, he may have been on the toilet at his leisure when he heard Kercher come in. She either saw him on the toilet and fled to her room, or he ambushed her in her room when he discovered she had locked the front door with her keys and he was trapped inside.

She was stabbed twice and the other wounds may have been made by his restraining her.

That said, it does not automatically or necessarily mean that the lone wolf scenario is what actually occurred. Crini does make mention of a cleanup in the small bath, as there are no prints leading to the isolated bath print, or away from it. Simulation and cleanup taken together with dubious behavior on the part of Knox and Sollecito are the strongest evidence pointing toward guilt. But they must be made to stand against all refutations.

I don't think it lends itself so easily to lone-wolf scenario. First, we would have to overcome the staged-burglary evidence.

If he was at the toilet and she came in and fled to her room, why would she flee herself into a trapped corner?? The natural thing would be to try to flee towards an escape! Why would she flee down a boxed-in hallway, and into a corner room?

If he was on the toilet and she just went to her room, not noticing, how would she not notice anything like someone in bathroom, lights on, light on in Filomena's room, broken window, draft from window, cold air? So did Rudy rummage through Filomena's room before he went to the bathroom, or afterwards? If it was before, there would have been a light on in Filomena's room, she would have walked straight by there to walk down the hallway, why would she not check that room since she was not expecting Filomena to be back?? To have a chat with her friend and roommate?

How did he make these "other wounds" and restrain her at the same time? If she was already to the point of not being able to fight back (unconscious or something of the sort), then what was the point of the extra wounds? Just for fun? So was his original motive burglary or was it murder?

IMO the details do not add up. The details do not make lone-wolf Rudy such an easy scenario to imagine.

 

[TorisMom003]

I don't think it lends itself so easily to lone-wolf scenario. First, we would have to overcome the staged-burglary evidence.

If he was at the toilet and she came in and fled to her room, why would she flee herself into a trapped corner?? The natural thing would be to try to flee towards an escape! Why would she flee down a boxed-in hallway, and into a corner room?

If he was on the toilet and she just went to her room, not noticing, how would she not notice anything like someone in bathroom, lights on, light on in Filomena's room, broken window, draft from window, cold air? So did Rudy rummage through Filomena's room before he went to the bathroom, or afterwards? If it was before, there would have been a light on in Filomena's room, she would have walked straight by there to walk down the hallway, why would she not check that room since she was not expecting Filomena to be back?? To have a chat with her friend and roommate?

How did he make these "other wounds" and restrain her at the same time? If she was already to the point of not being able to fight back (unconscious or something of the sort), then what was the point of the extra wounds? Just for fun? So was his original motive burglary or was it murder?

IMO the details do not add up. The details do not make lone-wolf Rudy such an easy scenario to imagine.

If RG, a known burglar, had a flashlight with him why would he need to turn on any lights? How many times has it been known that a person breaks into a house at night and turns the lights on in a room? How many times does a person not only turn a light on in a room but leave the light on in a room when they leave the room?

The larger bathroom is not easily seen from the living room/kitchen area. There are two doors for that bathroom. One door where the outer sink and washer/dryer are and then another door where the toilet, bidet, tub/shower are. How is it known that both or even one of those doors was open when RG was in the bathroom?

Do we know that Filomena's bedroom door was open when Meredith came home? Was it pulled closed some or even shut all the way by RG?

It is possible and probable that RG chocked Meredith first until she was unconscious and then stabbed her. I will include a video that has an expert stating how this is possible and in his opinion how it occured.

Since RG was a burglar, then one would conclude that the crime was originally to steal money or something that would be easy for him alone to carry out of the cottage. However once Meredith came home, someone that could ID him, it then led to her murder.

MOO

ETA: I can't get the video to upload correctly however the video can be seen on this link under "An expert for the defense demonstrates that Meredith was murdered by a single attacker. This video include an interview with Madison Paxton"
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/videos.html

 

[aa9511]

One of the problems with this quote is that it was given at a time when RG was not even on the radar. The three that were arrested were AK, RS and PL. Once the results from the evidence started to come in, it should have been clear to the investigators that their initial thought process was possibly flawed. Instead they appear to have just exchanged one man out for another.

But doesn't that in some way reinforce their belief in the things such as staged burglary, inconsistencies and/or lies in Amanda and RS stories, etc.? Because what you're saying is that before they found the burglar, they already suspected that some things were staged and that the crime scene was not as straight-forward as it was made out to seem like. That would mean that there was evidence inherent to the crime scene which lead them to believe things like the staged burglary. And when Rudy was found, his discovery didn't change that evidence. That would actually work as a plus for the investigators, would it not? That they were going based on evidence, evidence which was already there, and evidence which they could not and did not magically change or erase away.

 

[TorisMom003]

But doesn't that in some way reinforce their belief in the things such as staged burglary, inconsistencies and/or lies in Amanda and RS stories, etc.? Because what you're saying is that before they found the burglar, they already suspected that some things were staged and that the crime scene was not as straight-forward as it was made out to seem like. That would mean that there was evidence inherent to the crime scene which lead them to believe things like the staged burglary. And when Rudy was found, his discovery didn't change that evidence. That would actually work as a plus for the investigators, would it not? That they were going based on evidence, evidence which was already there, and evidence which they could not and did not magically change or erase away.

When one looks at the time that the qoute was made, the fact that more evidence was needed and collected at a later date, and that the evidence collected on that second trip to the cottage is what pointed to AK and RS "being a part of the crime" then no. What it tells me is that the police jumped to a conclusion that didn't pan out. Instead of looking where the evidence led them, they looked for more evidence to prove their claims.

moo

 

[aa9511]

Well, exchanging Lumumba for Guede might possibly be believable, if you have some hardcore evidence that the scenario "dreamed up" by Knox may contain elements of truth.

I think the investigators had faith in her story psychologically. How dreadful it must have been when Patrick began to vanish from the story--- and how pleasant to have Guede to put in his place. If we have faith in the police, we see this as reasonable. If we suspect them, it looks like monkey business.

At bottom, the police's faith must be bolstered with evidence, and this is why I am sifting madly through all, trying to find if there is any (Crini says there is) which really stands up to scrutiny.

How does the fact that police did not erase, or get rid of, or throw out, or change, evidence mean that they only believed in it "psychologically." I do not agree with this, very respectfully.

They had hard evidence in the very beginning, which lead them towards the theory that the crime scene was staged. Do we expect them to suddenly throw out this evidence when they found Rudy?

The fact that they did not change or throw out this evidence even upon finding Rudy, points to the fact that it was rooted in hard evidence. It is not "monkey business" that they decided not to change or discard the evidence based on the whim of people talking.

If they had changed and uprooted their theory wholly from situation to situation, from time to time, that would have instead have supported that they only believed in their Amanda story "psychologically." They did not do that. They kept the elements of their original theory, because the evidence that it was based upon was not figments of imagination, it was real, hard evidence. That is why the elements didn't change!!

 

[TorisMom003]

How does the fact that police did not erase, or get rid of, or throw out, or change, evidence mean that they only believed in it "psychologically." I do not agree with this, very respectfully.

They had hard evidence in the very beginning, which lead them towards the theory that the crime scene was staged. Do we expect them to suddenly throw out this evidence when they found Rudy?

The fact that they did not change or throw out this evidence even upon finding Rudy, points to the fact that it was rooted in hard evidence. It is not "monkey business" that they decided not to change or discard the evidence based on the whim of people talking.

If they had changed and uprooted their theory wholly from situation to situation, from time to time, that would have instead have supported that they only believed in their Amanda story "psychologically." They did not do that. They kept the elements of their original theory, because the evidence that it was based upon was not figments of imagination, it was real, hard evidence. That is why the elements didn't change!!

Can you please list or link to the hard evidence that the police had against AK and/or RS at the time that this statement was made by Edgardo Giobbi. Please remember that at the time of this statement RG was not known about yet, the bra clasp had not been retrieved and tested yet and that the luminol footprints in the hallway had not been discovered yet. Thank you.

 

[aa9511]

When one looks at the time that the qoute was made, the fact that more evidence was needed and collected at a later date, and that the evidence collected on that second trip to the cottage is what pointed to AK and RS "being a part of the crime" then no. What it tells me is that the police jumped to a conclusion that didn't pan out. Instead of looking where the evidence led them, they looked for more evidence to prove their claims.

moo

Ok, I understand. What it means to me is that they had hard evidence which they did not change or ignore as the case moved on. I think of this hard evidence as a solid figure which is unmoveable and unchangeable. They had to work their theories around this figure. The theories may be changeable and malleable, but the solid figure is not. It is there, rooted in the ground and solid, they could not do anything to change it.

The Rudy-story must fit in with this solid figure of evidence. If by taking the Rudy-story, it means they have to change or chisel away at that solid figure, then that means the Rudy-story is not the whole picture.

IMO.

 

[SMK]

I don't think it lends itself so easily to lone-wolf scenario. First, we would have to overcome the staged-burglary evidence.

If he was at the toilet and she came in and fled to her room, why would she flee herself into a trapped corner?? The natural thing would be to try to flee towards an escape! Why would she flee down a boxed-in hallway, and into a corner room?

If he was on the toilet and she just went to her room, not noticing, how would she not notice anything like someone in bathroom, lights on, light on in Filomena's room, broken window, draft from window, cold air? So did Rudy rummage through Filomena's room before he went to the bathroom, or afterwards? If it was before, there would have been a light on in Filomena's room, she would have walked straight by there to walk down the hallway, why would she not check that room since she was not expecting Filomena to be back?? To have a chat with her friend and roommate?

How did he make these "other wounds" and restrain her at the same time? If she was already to the point of not being able to fight back (unconscious or something of the sort), then what was the point of the extra wounds? Just for fun? So was his original motive burglary or was it murder?

IMO the details do not add up. The details do not make lone-wolf Rudy such an easy scenario to imagine.

I guess you have a more astute eye than mine.

 

[Amber29]

Hour and a half? What are you basing this on? I think he leaves immediately after the stabbing and sexual assault is finished. This makes much more sense in the lone wolf scenario and is confirmed by the evidence.


Getting back to the clean up reconstruction for a moment:
Do you think the bathmat print was made by tracking blood from the murder room, and that trail was later cleaned up?

Katody I'm done talking about the footprints, I've said all I can say, I've answered all your questions. You seem to want to go in circles.

You have RG arriving before Meredith around 8:30 per his words. Then it was said RG attacked Meredith shortly after she arrived which was just about 9pm, lets say 9:05. Maybe 15mins for the attack at the most. So from 9:20 on he's hanging out in the cottage doing who knows what for at least 40-55mins. Considering at 10:13 Meredith's phones were still in the vicinity of the cottage, they certainly had not been disposed of at Lana's yet.

That is a long time

 

[aa9511]

Can you please list or link to the hard evidence that the police had against AK and/or RS at the time that this statement was made by Edgardo Giobbi. Please remember that at the time of this statement RG was not known about yet, the bra clasp had not been retrieved and tested yet and that the luminol footprints in the hallway had not been discovered yet. Thank you.

I mean hard evidence such as staged burglary. Also the way her body was found and what her body looked like, etc..

 

[SMK]

How does the fact that police did not erase, or get rid of, or throw out, or change, evidence mean that they only believed in it "psychologically." I do not agree with this, very respectfully.

They had hard evidence in the very beginning, which lead them towards the theory that the crime scene was staged. Do we expect them to suddenly throw out this evidence when they found Rudy?

The fact that they did not change or throw out this evidence even upon finding Rudy, points to the fact that it was rooted in hard evidence. It is not "monkey business" that they decided not to change or discard the evidence based on the whim of people talking.

If they had changed and uprooted their theory wholly from situation to situation, from time to time, that would have instead have supported that they only believed in their Amanda story "psychologically." They did not do that. They kept the elements of their original theory, because the evidence that it was based upon was not figments of imagination, it was real, hard evidence. That is why the elements didn't change!!

I understand, yes. I think I was part of a group for so long, whose mantra was, "When Guede was arrested, that should have been the end of the 3 on 1 attack. Knox and Sollecito should have been immediately cleared - the police just wanted to save face, so they clung to their original theory." that I didn't think of the inconsistencies. I would agree that they kept the key elements of their story for a reason: They were convinced of its truthfulness. Thanks.