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

[Dan O.]

I forgot the link for the interrogation recordings Dan. Could you please provide me with the link? Is it on the Wiki?

I included the link but due to budgetary constraints it had to be clipped.

 

[NancyS]

She wasn't a suspect. Witnesses don't have to be recorded. I know somebody has told you this on here by now.

Again, her statement in the room was not used against her in court. So this is a moot debate diversion of a point.

The reality is she must have accused Patrick or they would no have arrested him, and that was the biggest thing to come out of her statement. She can't deny she accused him and she didn't in court. So why do you need a recording. SHe said in court after questioning that they did not tell her he was the killer. I can get the transcript of this.

Your posts continue to show that you don't care less whether or not they had a fair trial. If you are not being disingenuous and really believe in the guilt of Amanda/Raffaele, you should be incredibly angry at the poor police practice and forensic blunders that have allowed them to go free. Surely you must believe that if only the police had recorded the interrogation and if only Stefanoni hadn't made so many lapses of protocol, it would have been a slam dunk case for the prosecution?

 

[Samson]

Your posts continue to show that you don't care less whether or not they had a fair trial. If you are not being disingenuous and really believe in the guilt of Amanda/Raffaele, you should be incredibly angry at the poor police practice and forensic blunders that have allowed them to go free. Surely you must believe that if only the police had recorded the interrogation and if only Stefanoni hadn't made so many lapses of protocol, it would have been a slam dunk case for the prosecution?

A loosely related question is the hypothetical one

Amanda dutifully returned to Italy for the appeal she requested, and sat waiting in the courtroom to be sentenced to 28 years for murder. Her co accused did not, but soon had all his travel documents seized.

Where would Amanda be now?

 

[Strozzi]

It is quite possible that Rafael cheated on Amanda and had a secret rendez-vous with Meridith at his place
Raffael's DNA got on the clasp when he helped her take off her bra. That knife fell on the floor and Meridith stepped on it while barefoot.
You may not agree with my theory, but you have got to admit it is easier to believe than Mignini's case.

Xinonix, thank you for raising this. I see you are looking for a possible scenario to explain how Meredith's DNA could have come in contact with Raffaele's big kitchen knife and how his DNA could have transferred in direct contact to Meredith's bra hook.

Raffaele met Meredith twice. The first time was, if I remember correctly, a few days before the day Meredith was murdered and the second time was the afternoon of Meredith's murder when Meredith was sleeping off her Holloween night partying and drinking. Raffaele was very "occupied" with Amanda. I believe Filomena was home the first time Raffaele was there and reported that Raffaele was very smitten by Amanda.

For your theory to be true, Raffaele and Meredith would have to have been lustful of each other, something neither Amanda nor Filomena noticed or reported about to others. Police found no mention of it on Amanda's computer and she wrote about almost everything including her happy relationship with all 3 of her housemates. Meredith was in a relationship with her downstairs boyfriend, a "rocker". Meredith mentioned nothing about any interest in or connection with Raffaele to her British girlfriends.

The police were able to construct a lot about Meredith's last few days alive - where she was, who she met, etc. and there does not appear to be a "window of time" when Metedith and Raffaele might have been together outside of the two times Amanda and Raffaele were at hAmanda's cottage, and as mentioned earlier Filomena was also present for some of that time.

For Meredith to have come in contact with Raffaele's own kitchen knife, Raffaele or Amanda would have had to have brought his big kitchen knife to the cottage and it is too big to fit in a guy's jeans pocket. Physical inspection of Amanda's purse shows no evidence that a large knife was ever in her purse, such as knifepoint damage to the cloth lining of Amanda's purse.

Your theory is interesting because you are looking for a scenario where Meredith's DNA got on the blade and Raffaele's DNA got on Meredith's bra hook. But there are easier explanations for both to allegedly occur, if either did in fact occur.

Stefanoni has not established in any scientific way (i.e., with real test data) that Meredith's DNA was in fact on the knife blade (she provided only a part of the test data, withholding or destroying part of it -the data printout that shows her machine tested free/clean of Metedith's DNA to begin with). The matter that she claims to have found on the knife blade and tested was of such a miniscule amount (low Copy DNA) that there is scientific doubt that it even existed. It was so minuscule that it might have been tiny contamination already in her machine (which she had already used to esrlier examine Meredith's DNA). Stefanoni's lab was not equipped to store and process Low Copy DNA. The manufacturer of her test machine stated explicitly in the machine documentation that it was not to be used to examine Low Copy DNA, which is what the alleged matter allegedly found on the knife blade is alleged by Stefanoni to have been.

The data that indicates that Raffaele's DNA was on the bra hook includes data showing DNA of four males, total. Stefanoni has concealed or destroyed machine-produced details of the other three, which is suspicious behavior for an honest scientist and indicates that she really provides results tailored to support one side (her police colleagues and the prosecutors) story, rather than objective scientifically-valid results.

 

[Strozzi]

I included the link but due to budgetary constraints it had to be clipped.

The recordings of the police interrogations were on all four computers taken by the police. Check with their computer expert. I'm sure he made a copy.

If that doesn't work, check with Stefanoni. She swears she provided it to the court. It must be in the court file.

 

[analemma]

The Media article I have been waiting for
The author asks the Media why it has been asleep and afraid top confront this injustice and the lies which are allowing it to occur.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-marie-basile/where-are-all-the-feminists_b_5386971.html
She knocks it out of the park.

 

[Desert Fox]

The Media article I have been waiting for
The author asks the Media why it has been asleep and afraid top confront this injustice and the lies which are allowing it to occur.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-marie-basile/where-are-all-the-feminists_b_5386971.html
She knocks it out of the park.

I noted already that they are less open about their sexuality than Americans or British seem to be.

Edit: I also want to know where the Atheists are? If you read Ms Knox's book, she is an atheist as well.

 

[xinonix]

"Your theory is interesting because you are looking for a scenario where Meredith's DNA got on the blade and Raffaele's DNA got on Meredith's bra hook. But there are easier explanations for both to allegedly occur, if either did in fact occur."

Even there actually was Rafael's DNA there, there is also DNA from4 other guys. The prosecution proved Meridith is promiscuous.
I said the rendez-vous was secret i.e. it occurred at Rafael's place and nobody found out about it.
some women have told me that Rafael is quite attractive if you are into men with pretty boy faces.
The prosecution was trying to use the knife and clasp as a substitute for evidence. This requires that not only must the DNA actually be there, it must have gotten there during the murder.
It may or may not have gotten there during a secret rendez-vous, but we know it did'nt get there during the murder

 

[Vibio]

I noted already that they are less open about their sexuality than Americans or British seem to be.

The Italians? Less open about their sexuality than Amercans and Brits? LOL. Oh really?

BTW: that article is such BS from start to finish but it's perfect stuff for the Knoxians.

Where are all the feminists? Certainly not on the side of murderer Amanda Knox... found guilty of killing a woman.


---

 

[Desert Fox]

The Italians? Less open about their sexuality than Amercans and Brits? LOL. Oh really?

BTW: that article is such BS from start to finish but it's perfect stuff for the Knoxians.

Where are all the feminists? Certainly not on the side of murderer Amanda Knox... found guilty of killing a woman.

So, guilty or innocent, it is alright to lie to a person about their HIV status to get a list of names of their sexual partners to release it to the media?
Good to know

 

[Diocletus]

The Italians? Less open about their sexuality than Amercans and Brits? LOL. Oh really?

[/I]


---

Yes, we know. Italians love to waive their junk all around. Boobs on TV and in the newspaper and all of that. It's la dolce vita . . . or coarse . . . you decide.

 

[Skind]

This is a red herring because they did not user her verbal statements in the trial. Only her written statement which was unsolicited and not required for her to write was used. All she had to do was shut up. So rather or not she should have been recorded is much ado about nothing as it was inadmissible in court.

This is a red herring as I wasn't talking about what was or was used in the trial, but was responding directly to the contention that there is a supposed double standard being applied to Knox and the police.

Come on, I even led with a quote to the exact post I was responding to. You cannot possibly be making these mistakes by accident.

There is a reason why double standards are being applied to the police - it's because they're professionally trained to ensure - as far as is possible - that they do not make the mistakes of the sort they made in this case. They're trained to be highlevel observers, recorders and communicators for a reason - so that they can stand up in investigations and court and give a full and proper account of their actions and their findings. A sloppy police officer can blow your multi-million Euro case.

I can't see a true hippy blaming an innocent black guy for a murder.

Who mentioned 'true' hippy? That's a fallacy that no one but you mentioned. Aside from your incredulity being worth exactly spit, if you can't see how an American middle class white female could have enough trust in the police to believe what they were saying to her, then you lack enough cultural understanding for it to be worthwhile continuing.

 

[Anode]

...snip...

Stefanoni has not established in any scientific way (i.e., with real test data) that Meredith's DNA was in fact on the knife blade (she provided only a part of the test data, withholding or destroying part of it -the data printout that shows her machine tested free/clean of Metedith's DNA to begin with). The matter that she claims to have found on the knife blade and tested was of such a miniscule amount (low Copy DNA) that there is scientific doubt that it even existed. It was so minuscule that it might have been tiny contamination already in her machine (which she had already used to esrlier examine Meredith's DNA). Stefanoni's lab was not equipped to store and process Low Copy DNA. The manufacturer of her test machine stated explicitly in the machine documentation that it was not to be used to examine Low Copy DNA, which is what the alleged matter allegedly found on the knife blade is alleged by Stefanoni to have been.

The data that indicates that Raffaele's DNA was on the bra hook includes data showing DNA of four males, total. Stefanoni has concealed or destroyed machine-produced details of the other three, which is suspicious behavior for an honest scientist and indicates that she really provides results tailored to support one side (her police colleagues and the prosecutors) story, rather than objective scientifically-valid results.

Thank you for posting this. I think it summarizes the Stefanoni LCN problem very succinctly.

 

[Vibio]

if you can't see how an American middle class white female could have enough trust in the police to believe what they were saying to her, then you lack enough cultural understanding for it to be worthwhile continuing.

The court transcripts of the cross examinations by the defense of those at the Questura that night clearly show that this was no forced confession.

 

[Skind]

She wasn't a suspect. Witnesses don't have to be recorded. I know somebody has told you this on here by now.

Again, her statement in the room was not used against her in court. So this is a moot debate diversion of a point.

The reality is she must have accused Patrick or they would no have arrested him, and that was the biggest thing to come out of her statement. She can't deny she accused him and she didn't in court. So why do you need a recording. SHe said in court after questioning that they did not tell her he was the killer. I can get the transcript of this.

Rather ironically, the person that told us Knox wasn't a suspect, went on to provide an 'official' definition of suspect that would have made Knox a suspect seven ways to sunday the moment she indicated that she might have met the guy that might have done it.

Also, as people have pointed out quite extensively and repeatedly now, the police and prosecution made copious amounts of recordings in this case, including of other witnesses, and those recording were made in various areas not normally outfitted for recording, AND they made great effort to get a hold of and follow up on incidental recordings. It's highly suspect that they suddenly had a blackout right when the called Sollecito in precisely so they could question him on a few 'oddities' in his accounts. It's simply not within their established modus operandi to suddenly not record.

She said in court that the police did not expressly name him, but the entire point of that exhange in court was that they heavily implied 'the name' had something to do with it.

 

[Skind]

The court transcripts of the cross examinations by the defense of those at the Questura that night clearly show that this was no forced confession.

You can believe that all you want, it doesn't make it true. Also, we not just talking about forced confessions, but all forms of false confessions. You should know by now that forced confession refers to only one sub-type of false confession. Laughably, if you had known this, you'd know that the very post you're responding to references an internalised false confession, not compliant (i.e. forced or coerced) false confession.

If you're going to challenge me, at least bother to understand the basics, and try to put in at least minimal effort to read my post first, rather than firing off a cookie cutter arguement when you see key words.

As others have pointed out, all the factors that would indicate a false confession are contained within the testimony, most notably including Knox's.

Jeez, shape up: this is Jref, not some low-quality guilter site.

 

[Bill Williams]

The court transcripts of the cross examinations by the defense of those at the Questura that night clearly show that this was no forced confession.

Can you please provide these transcripts. And if it wasn't a forced confession, then why the police comment afterwards that said, "She buckled and told us what we already knew"?

And of course, those are court transcripts. The failure to record or transcribe a suspect-interrogation would have settled this, but alas, those were not done, as Mignini said, for budgetary reasons.

Do you believe Mignini when he implies that they SHOULD have been done, but were not for some lame reason?

 

[Vibio]

Also, as people have pointed out quite extensively and repeatedly now, the police and prosecution made copious amounts of recordings in this case, including of other witnesses, and those recording were made in various areas not normally outfitted for recording, AND they made great effort to get a hold of and follow up on incidental recordings. It's highly suspect that they suddenly had a blackout right when the called Sollecito in precisely so they could question him on a few 'oddities' in his accounts. It's simply not within their established modus operandi to suddenly not record.

Tapes were made in Mignini's office by him, in the prison but in the interrogation room no one is taped by the police:

"But in a police station, at the very moment of the investigation it isn’t done, not with respect to Amanda or anyone else."

In Italy I have never heard of the police taping anyone at the Questura under questioning. Actually, I wonder if it's even legal. I'm under the impression it's not done in Germany either (laws made after the war).

In 2007 very few police stations were equipped with recording equipment in the US as well. But prison recordings, wire tapping etc. were carried out all the same.

In the US as well as Italy, it's mostly your word against the police (certainly so back in 2007).

The court transcripts show this was not a forced confession.

 

[JREF2010]

Tapes were made in Mignini's office by him, in the prison but in the interrogation room no one is taped by the police:

"But in a police station, at the very moment of the investigation it isn’t done, not with respect to Amanda or anyone else."

In Italy I have never heard of the police taping anyone at the Questura under questioning. Actually, I wonder if it's even legal. I'm under the impression it's not done in Germany either (laws made after the war).

In 2007 very few police stations were equipped with recording equipment in the US as well. But prison recordings, wire tapping etc. were carried out as well.

Maybe I misunderstand your point, but the police were recording Raffaele and Amanda in the Questura minutes before the interrogation & coercion took place.

 

[Bill Williams]

Tapes were made in Mignini's office by him, in the prison but in the interrogation room no one is taped by the police:

"But in a police station, at the very moment of the investigation it isn’t done, not with respect to Amanda or anyone else."

In Italy I have never heard of the police taping anyone at the Questura under questioning. Actually, I wonder if it's even legal. I'm under the impression it's not done in Germany either (laws made after the war).

In 2007 very few police stations were equipped with recording equipment in the US as well. But prison recordings, wire tapping etc. were carried out all the same.

In the US as well as Italy, it's mostly your word against the police (certainly so back in 2007).

The court transcripts show this was not a forced confession.

At some level I "get" why someone would suspect Amanda Knox and/or Raffaele Sollecito of involvement at some level in this crime.

What I don't get, at all, is the need to defend Giuliano Mignini, someone who himself was provisionally convicted himself of a crime while the Meredith Kercher investigation was taking place.

It is one thing to argue stomach contents, gastric emptying as it relates to Time of Death....

.... it is quite another to read posters give a complete free pass to the police, and particularly the PM of the day, Mignini.

Vibio, in your earnest urge to clear Mingini of wrongdoing, you don't even agree with Mignini. He knew his responsibilities, he just didn't do them. He tells CNN's Drew Griffin in 2010 exactly what a PM's responsibilities were - he told Drew Griffin that it was he, himself, who ordered a stop to the first interrogation, quoting to Rita Ficarra the applicable law which included the mandatory presence of a lawyer, translator, and transcribing/videotaping of what was going on.

Geez, even Mignini himself concedes this.

Then we have random internet posters in a full-on charge to condemn Knox and Sollecito who actually try to defend Mignini in ways he doesn't even defend himself!

In some ways I "get" the unfocussed vitriol aimed at two people you suspect of murder.

What I don't get is this love affair with Mignini?

Someone asked who Machiavelli was. Well Machiavelli is a some-time poster to this very forum. In my opinion, Machiavelli appears only when there's conversation here that threatens Mignini. Andrea Vogt is the same, she's an ex-pat American journalist living in Italy who not only defends Mignini, but.....

...... actively promotes Mignini's case, as at the Perugian trials. The proof of all this for me is that neither Vogt nor Machiavelli have ever either defended or advanced the Crini/Nencini case against Knox and Sollecito. Once Mignini is in the clear in relation to the various prosecutions aimed at him, they disappear.

Why is it that people defend Mignini? Why do the fawn over the guy, defending him in ways he doesn't even defend himself - with patent falsehoods which even Mignini himself contradicts!?