Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Samson]

Recent posts reminded me of what I thought was a long lost poster

I am imagining a future conversation Amanda may be forced to endure.

"Amanda, you are a convicted killer", to which she may justly respond

Aha no, I am convicted of killing, but a convicted killer must have killed.

 

[acbytesla]

I am imagining a future conversation Amanda may be forced to endure.

"Amanda, you are a convicted killer", to which she may justly respond

Aha no, I am convicted of killing, but a convicted killer must have killed.

You have to be a moron to think that Amanda and Raffaele had anything to do with Meredith's death. I mean you must be really intellectually challenged. Either that or you're corrupt These are the kind of people who add two and two together and get sixteen.

 

[anglolawyer]

That's pretty interesting. I wonder if Mignini could have convicted Lumumba if they had wanted to? It would be interesting to see what kinds of evidence they think they had.

Any tramp witnesses? Did Curatolo perhaps see him too? Nara did hear many footsteps, so that is compatible with Lumumba being involved.

The story Malcolm Moore (the Daily Telegraph journo) told me is that, after the arrests, people in the town were surprised and skeptical to learn of Patricks's involvement since he was well thought of. Moore happened to catch Mignini on the steps of his office and asked him whether he was sure about Lumumba and, figuratively speaking, Mignini tapped his nose and said he had a huge file on him. This could have meant either a historical file of past criminal activity or a bulging file of evidence proving his involvement in the murder. Given the very wide interpretation Italy gives to the concept of 'evidence' it could be either one.

I agree with Grinder, the key to this whole case is in that first week and we mostly don't have the relevant info. We don't have notes of interviews taken from them in the days leading up to 5th-6th (Christiannahannah says these are on the trial file though) tapes of the crucial recordings, briefing notes, a note of Mignini's interview with John Kercher on 5th Nov when he mainly asked about Amanda (an important fact) Amanda's phone to give to Dan O. for forensic examination (under my direction ) and a whole bunch of other stuff I can't be expected to think of at this time in the morning.

 

[carbonjam72]

The story Malcolm Moore (the Daily Telegraph journo) told me is that, after the arrests, people in the town were surprised and skeptical to learn of Patricks's involvement since he was well thought of. Moore happened to catch Mignini on the steps of his office and asked him whether he was sure about Lumumba and, figuratively speaking, Mignini tapped his nose and said he had a huge file on him. This could have meant either a historical file of past criminal activity or a bulging file of evidence proving his involvement in the murder. Given the very wide interpretation Italy gives to the concept of 'evidence' it could be either one.

I agree with Grinder, the key to this whole case is in that first week and we mostly don't have the relevant info. We don't have notes of interviews taken from them in the days leading up to 5th-6th (Christiannahannah says these are on the trial file though) tapes of the crucial recordings, briefing notes, a note of Mignini's interview with John Kercher on 5th Nov when he mainly asked about Amanda (an important fact) Amanda's phone to give to Dan O. for forensic examination (under my direction ) and a whole bunch of other stuff I can't be expected to think of at this time in the morning.

Can I ask where this fact is known from? Follain? Another journo? Do you know if it was Mignini asking Kercher about Amanda, or Kercher asking Mignini about Amanda?

I've posted my thoughts on these early days previously. It seems to me that Amanda and Raf had been targeted for framing by at least Nov 4th, if not Nov 3rd.

 

[Samson]

Can I ask where this fact is known from? Follain? Another journo? Do you know if it was Mignini asking Kercher about Amanda, or Kercher asking Mignini about Amanda?

I've posted my thoughts on these early days previously. It seems to me that Amanda and Raf had been targeted for framing by at least Nov 4th, if not Nov 3rd.

I honestly can't see how targeting for framing would work. This would require a certainty no alibis would emerge. All events can be explained by crass stupidity, including putting it out on november 4 that it might be a female satan who killed.

 

[carbonjam72]

I honestly can't see how targeting for framing would work. This would require a certainty no alibis would emerge. All events can be explained by crass stupidity, including putting it out on november 4 that it might be a female satan who killed.

From what I see in this and other cases, the first step is selecting the guilty. Then confessions are coerced, and evidence gathered to prove 'what is already known', and tramp marginal witnesses are auditioned from skid row as the icing on the cake.

Actual police work and legitimate forensic analysis are either accidental, or saved for the appeal after an initial conviction, and only for those who can afford it between themselves, family, and friends. And any complaints about the process result in legal claims against the complainant.

I'm not ruling out stupidity, or in this case, the legitimately insane fixation of Miginini on satanic orgy group murders. Motivation for framing is secondary to whether or not it actually occurred. I believe it did, for reasons I've set forth in previous posts.

(Strozzi asked me, I think a few months ago, why I thought the police knew Guede and his MO, and I was pretty extensive in laying out what I thought I had in that regard. I'd have to fish out the post #, but thats my thinking on it if you're interested).

 

[anglolawyer]

Can I ask where this fact is known from? Follain? Another journo? Do you know if it was Mignini asking Kercher about Amanda, or Kercher asking Mignini about Amanda?

I've posted my thoughts on these early days previously. It seems to me that Amanda and Raf had been targeted for framing by at least Nov 4th, if not Nov 3rd.

In JK's book, he says he was interviewed by Mignini the day he touched down in Italy and that the main topic was Amanda. I have argued with Katy_did and MichaelB about what day that was. I am satisfied from a news report I found and linked here long ago that it was the 5th. Also, JK's account of that day makes no sense at all if Amanda had already been arrested since it suggests he knew nothing about the arrests despite being taken to the morgue and shown around by cops, officials etc

 

[Grinder]

I honestly can't see how targeting for framing would work. This would require a certainty no alibis would emerge. All events can be explained by crass stupidity, including putting it out on november 4 that it might be a female satan who killed.

Thank you. The idea they were "framing" from day one is pretty much idiotic. In addition to your valid point I would add that forensics weren't complete and someone else's DNA or prints could have been found. The "semen" stain could have been tested and someone else implicated. A witness could have come along and fingered an Albanian drug dealer as being present with two others in the car, one being Rudi.

To expand on your point, computer activity couldn't have been known by the police until after the 5th. A witness could have seen them through a window in their apartment.

Also, it could have been that the murderer would come forward and confess.

The police and prosecutors are much more likely to have been mistaken and incompetent than venal, at least at that point.

I would agree with Anglo that the material from the first week is crucial. I ask above if anybody has Amanda's memory experts testimony. Not withstanding the attacks I endured over her "contrasting" statements, did the expert only talk about her "confession" or about the interviews on the 2nd, 3rd and 4th?

 

[Bill Williams]

In JK's book, he says he was interviewed by Mignini the day he touched down in Italy and that the main topic was Amanda. I have argued with Katy_did and MichaelB about what day that was. I am satisfied from a news report I found and linked here long ago that it was the 5th. Also, JK's account of that day makes no sense at all if Amanda had already been arrested since it suggests he knew nothing about the arrests despite being taken to the morgue and shown around by cops, officials etc

Grinder is perhaps right that it would be useful to have for the Nov 2 to 6 period, an hour by hour, "What did the cops/PLE know and when did they know it?"

Maybe select Napoleoni and Mignini for this, given that all cops would not know everything.

So here's the deal. I think Winterbottom's film was vetted by lawyers, if fo no other reason than that the film company not face what Edda Mellas and Curt Knox faced.

For instance, RS's and AK's interrogation is handled as if they were simply having a serious/profound conversation with a friend at Starbucks. (The scenes were shot with close-ups of RS and AK,not showing who else was in the room; also perhaps for legal reasons).

So here's the deal. The one bit of dialogue with the actor-Mignini is Thomas and Simone in his office, perhaps during the first trial, c. 2009. This is perhaps the one thing Winterbottom took from Nadeau that is kept intact - but it speaks to theis Nov 2 to 5th period, what did they know and when did they know it.

The Mignini-character is clear, it was when Knox was taken back to the cottage for a visual inventory of the knives there. The Mignini-character tells Simone and Thomas that when she saw the knives she went hysterical. It was from that point we decided to tap their phones.

Is this a trustworthy bit of info? I mean it's only in a film? (About a case where the prosecutor is quick with the defamation suit! Where the interrogations are soft peddled, the scene crafted with the legalites right off camera somewhere.)

Does anyone know if Mignini actually told Nadeau that at some point? That it was Knox getting hysterical over knives that caused his suspicion?

ETA - for John Follain, perhaps telling Napoleoni's story, it's the pooh in the toilet that first cast suspicion - Napoleoni wondered why Raffaele was so intent on getting them to see it.

 

[Bill Williams]

I honestly can't see how targeting for framing would work. This would require a certainty no alibis would emerge. All events can be explained by crass stupidity, including putting it out on november 4 that it might be a female satan who killed.

I do not see a willful framing in the Nov 2-5 period, because I also don't see how it would work either. I see it more like an avalanche of incompetence gathering force. Every new mistake by police would be somehow shoe-horned into a bizarre scenario....

But that business of, "require a certainty no alibis would emerge".... that did not seem to stop the PLE. They simply arrested Amanda's alibi, and ignored Lumumba's until they could not ignore it any more, then tried to pin their incompetence about Lumumba on to Knox - casting her as some sort of Moriarty-character; a skillful master criminal who could pull the wool over the eyes of seasoned investigators at interrogation.

I think it's a virtual certainty that Mignini had an over-arching narrative to this crime which required the occult, sex-games, and some sort of mystical-sexual hold from Knox to entrap Sollecito and Guede.

It's amazing that Mignini's initial theories have had the legs they've had. Acc. to Nadeau, it took Manuela Comodi to threaten to resign of Mignini went into court with the Occult stuff. And despite it being buried even by Massei's court, Cassation resurrected "sex-games gone wrong" in 2013. Not even Massei believed that.

The point is, alibis DID emerge. The PLE showed remarkable deftness at dealing with them, the one thing they did well as otherwise incompetents.

 

[Grinder]

Grinder is perhaps right that it would be useful to have for the Nov 2 to 6 period, an hour by hour, "What did the cops/PLE know and when did they know it?"

Maybe select Napoleoni and Mignini for this, given that all cops would not know everything.

We want the transcripts. I don't know why you would limit it to N and M. IIRC Ficarro was one of the early interviewer.

For instance, RS's and AK's interrogation is handled as if they were simply having a serious/profound conversation with a friend at Starbucks. (The scenes were shot with close-ups of RS and AK,not showing who else was in the room; also perhaps for legal reasons).

Why do keep bringing up film based on Barbie's book as if it is evidence presented in court. It's a movie. I'll give you that from what I've seen she wrote more of a non-fiction book than the others but that's just my impression.

So here's the deal. The one bit of dialogue with the actor-Mignini is Thomas and Simone in his office, perhaps during the first trial, c. 2009. This is perhaps the one thing Winterbottom took from Nadeau that is kept intact - but it speaks to theis Nov 2 to 5th period, what did they know and when did they know it.

This is like using 2001 as information on the US space program.

The Mignini-character is clear, it was when Knox was taken back to the cottage for a visual inventory of the knives there. The Mignini-character tells Simone and Thomas that when she saw the knives she went hysterical. It was from that point we decided to tap their phones.

By any chance is there, so know like, actual facts presented. It should be easy to find out when the taps started.

Is this a trustworthy bit of info? I mean it's only in a film? (About a case where the prosecutor is quick with the defamation suit! Where the interrogations are soft peddled, the scene crafted with the legalites right off camera somewhere.)

Does anyone know if Mignini actually told Nadeau that at some point? That it was Knox getting hysterical over knives that caused his suspicion?

ETA - for John Follain, perhaps telling Napoleoni's story, it's the pooh in the toilet that first cast suspicion - Napoleoni wondered why Raffaele was so intent on getting them to see it.

Why would Mignini sue? What in the movie that you have described paints him in a light that would make him sue?

I do not see a willful framing in the Nov 2-5 period, because I also don't see how it would work either. I see it more like an avalanche of incompetence gathering force. Every new mistake by police would be somehow shoe-horned into a bizarre scenario....

Very good Bill, you are learning

But that business of, "require a certainty no alibis would emerge".... that did not seem to stop the PLE. They simply arrested Amanda's alibi, and ignored Lumumba's until they could not ignore it any more, then tried to pin their incompetence about Lumumba on to Knox - casting her as some sort of Moriarty-character; a skillful master criminal who could pull the wool over the eyes of seasoned investigators at interrogation.

And I thought you had it. They went after people they thought were guilty and didn't frame them. The alibi thing only applies if they were framing.

I think it's a virtual certainty that Mignini had an over-arching narrative to this crime which required the occult, sex-games, and some sort of mystical-sexual hold from Knox to entrap Sollecito and Guede.

It's amazing that Mignini's initial theories have had the legs they've had. Acc. to Nadeau, it took Manuela Comodi to threaten to resign of Mignini went into court with the Occult stuff. And despite it being buried even by Massei's court, Cassation resurrected "sex-games gone wrong" in 2013. Not even Massei believed that.

The point is, alibis DID emerge. The PLE showed remarkable deftness at dealing with them, the one thing they did well as otherwise incompetents.

Once again you cherry pick. Barbie also says it was mixed blood and she verified that by talking with 9 forensic experts. Sex game is not occult or satanically related. They saw the scene as sexual with the nudity and all. They thought initially that Meredith had met a guy the night before.

It is unfortunate that neither of the kids was on the Internet for most of the evening proving at least one was at home. Even better would have been texts sent and received during the evening and night at Raf's.

We have absolutely no support for Barbie's Comodi remark and no way to check it AFAI can see. Even if Mignini is a nut case vis-a-vis satanism etc. that doesn't mean the initial suspicions were without merit, a priori.

 

[Desert Fox]

The continuous interrogations (call them what you want) indicate that they thought Amanda and Raff were involved. If not, there would have been one early on interrogation and then maybe a single follow up to try to solve a few problems. My understanding however is that there was interrogations day after after day indicate that they were suspects.

 

[Bill Williams]

We want the transcripts. I don't know why you would limit it to N and M. IIRC Ficarro was one of the early interviewer.

No reason, really. However, Ficarra would be an interesting one to have a timeline for, because she took the lead in going out into the hallto get Amanda, while Napoleoni went from room to room as things developed.

Why do keep bringing up film based on Barbie's book as if it is evidence presented in court. It's a movie. I'll give you that from what I've seen she wrote more of a non-fiction book than the others but that's just my impression.

When did I say I am bringing this up as "evidence as if presented in court"? That's the problem, isn't it... the PLE have never been put on trial. Recreating the events of Nov 2-5 belongs to the realm of the various people who think it is interesting to do it.

I bring up the film because they've done a detailed narrative. Unlike you or me, they've had to pass their narrative through lawyers to avoid potential minefields. I dare say, Grinder, that they know this material far, far better than you or I.

The hint for me that this was true was when the cast/crew was asked at the TIFF Q&A if they thought Knox/Sollecito were guilty, Beckinsale led with a very quick, "no comment." Since when does an actress so quickly say "no comment" unless coached?

Nadeau intended a non-fiction book, but wanted to write more about the larger student-context of Perugia, so as to understand her then "student killer" stand on things.

This is like using 2001 as information on the US space program.

Fun fact. The original Star Trek series HAS been used as a template for serious science. Grinder: don't go all high-brow on us. You can probably listen to the William Tell Overture without thinking of the Lone Ranger.

Good for you. As a matter of fact, Kubrik's film DID both reflect as well as influence the American space program. One of the things it anticipated when few were thinking otherwise, was the privatization of space-flight. Perhaps you missed this week's announcement from NASA on contracting out the new vehicle to ISS.

You've badly missed the mark with this comment. Shows where you're coming from.

By any chance is there, so know like, actual facts presented. It should be easy to find out when the taps started.

Why would Mignini sue? What in the movie that you have described paints him in a light that would make him sue?

It's what's NOT in the film... that's my point. The interrogation scene steers clear of the issues that are presently before the Italian courts.... defamation by Knox against 8 members of PLE.

So, unlike you or me being armchair commentators, Winterbottom and his film company actually DID have to know the material, and know where the minefields of content were.

Very good Bill, you are learning

Thank you.

And I thought you had it. They went after people they thought were guilty and didn't frame them. The alibi thing only applies if they were framing.

Nope.

Once again you cherry pick. Barbie also says it was mixed blood and she verified that by talking with 9 forensic experts. Sex game is not occult or satanically related. They saw the scene as sexual with the nudity and all. They thought initially that Meredith had met a guy the night before.

It is unfortunate that neither of the kids was on the Internet for most of the evening proving at least one was at home. Even better would have been texts sent and received during the evening and night at Raf's.

We have absolutely no support for Barbie's Comodi remark and no way to check it AFAI can see. Even if Mignini is a nut case vis-a-vis satanism etc. that doesn't mean the initial suspicions were without merit, a priori.

Not sure your point here.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

not even wrong

Why do keep bringing up film based on Barbie's book as if it is evidence presented in court. It's a movie. I'll give you that from what I've seen she wrote more of a non-fiction book than the others but that's just my impression.

Grinder,

There might be a comment in these 11 threads that caused me to shake my head in complete bewilderment more than the one I highlighted, but right now I cannot think of one. To take just one example, who are Barbie's 9 experts? To take another, her assertion that there was a slightly positive test for drugs but that the substance could not be identified belongs in the category of statements that are not even wrong.
ETA
I am not sure that she asserted 9 forensic experts in her book (I seem to recall that this was said in response to a question). Her claim does say something about her reporting, however.

 

[Kaosium]

Hmm, I see the truth of Nov 5th is as elusive as ever. Perhaps that’s why the aliens stayed their hand.
But enough of that – we shall have to agree to differ.

Perhaps I will fix you with my 'glittering eye' again--but not right now.

In other more topical news – I hear that gay ice cream (manufactured in the hollow moon) & Iran, Putin and ISIS have joined the conspiracy.
Mignini is a powerful warlock certainly but to manage to get ISIS and Putin to pull together is quite a feat.
Perhaps he is the evil mastermind you guys claim. If so what chance has Amanda. If ISIS are on board Obama should be no problem.

I'm sorry, I don't get this reference.

 

[Grinder]

You're right Bill 2001 is the basis for our current space program, not.

Maybe you should read sci-fi from the 50's and get a clue. Strangers on a Train includes dialogue about buying a seat for space travel as part of a bucket list. The film was done in 1951 and written earlier.

We have no idea how well versed the movie people are on the case.

I'll bet they don't know the police deleted Patrick's text or that police never checked his knives. They also know nothing about who put the lamp in Meredith's room.

 

[Bill Williams]

You're right Bill 2001 is the basis for our current space program, not.

Maybe you should read sci-fi from the 50's and get a clue. Strangers on a Train includes dialogue about buying a seat for space travel as part of a bucket list. The film was done in 1951 and written earlier.

We have no idea how well versed the movie people are on the case.

I'll bet they don't know the police deleted Patrick's text or that police never checked his knives. They also know nothing about who put the lamp in Meredith's room.

I was right. You never did think of the Lone Ranger. ETA - I note the changing of the goalposts.... "the basis for our space program". SIGH.

 

[Grinder]

Grinder,

There might be a comment in these 11 threads that caused me to shake my head in complete bewilderment more than the one I highlighted, but right now I cannot think of one. To take just one example, who are Barbie's 9 experts? To take another, her assertion that there was a slightly positive test for drugs but that the substance could not be identified belongs in the category of statements that are not even wrong.
ETA
I am not sure that she asserted 9 forensic experts in her book. Her claim does say something about her reporting, however.

Don't shake too hard. Your examples are not of the type of fiction used by the genre. She may be stupid as a box of rocks and gets things wrong but I wouldn't put her book in the same genre as those that wrote a screenplay.

Ironic that her book is the basis for a movie, but as I understand it, it is more about the press than the crime.

 

[Grinder]

I was right. You never did think of the Lone Ranger. ETA - I note the changing of the goalposts.... "the basis for our space program". SIGH.

What idiocy. I played on the kettle drum William Tell's Overature in Little Symphony, which spoiled the piece for all that heard it.

Bill - One of the things it anticipated when few were thinking otherwise, was the privatization of space-flight. Perhaps you missed this week's announcement from NASA on contracting out the new vehicle to ISS.

Didn't miss Seattle's own Besos or Boeing either.

 

[Bill Williams]

What idiocy. I played on the kettle drum William Tell's Overature in Little Symphony, which spoiled the piece for all that heard it.



Didn't miss Seattle's own Besos or Boeing either.

Ok.... putting the goalposts back where they'd been at the start.....

It is apparent that Winterbottom's crew did their homework, and perhaps know the lay of the legal landscape better than you or I. There film has obvious parts of it which have been crafted with that obviously in mind.

And you have an advantage over me at least, you have the opportunity, for instance, to actually engage with the FOA folk in Seattle, rather than rely on JREF posts. You have, in theory, the ability to as questions of perhaps Judge Heavey, or discuss with one of the true crime authors about her sources.

You've made the claim that no one, when asked here on JREF, points to a time when they've had a good experience with doing exactly that. Yet my count is up to three individuals (myself included) who've reported to you that they've done exactly that.....

..... made direct contact with someone who's offer something from a unsourced point of view, asking for the source. All three have talked about being pleasantly surprised, about how much these authors really do respond with sources, when asked.

You prefer to make things up about true crime authors, namely that they themselves just make things up. Yet I have yet to come across anyone who has actually made the effort to contact these people who has found out a better lay of the land than can be gleaned either from their work, or from the discussion here on JREF.

Ok, you have moved. You have heard the criticism when you called FOA's "invested" in innocence, and you have backed off of that. You have actually heard the criticism about Amanda's "inconsistencies", and have adopted what is a more nuanced view - and you're light-years from calling those inconsistencies "lies" as the haters/guilters do....

.... which perhaps shows your own "investment" in innocence, because at the end of the day you are not a guilter or a hater. You, yourself, bring a, shall we say "unique" argumentative method to JREF which is, at the end of the day, valued by most if not all here - including me.

I have always thought that in more than one way the key to the case was the false "confession" and the obvious fact that police had Patrick as the killer well before Amanda told them "what they knew to be correct."​

You seem to be saying here something that is obvious, and I wish you would expand on that rather than the canards about sources - films/true crime stuff.