Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

(...)
Preston/Spezi detail Carlizzi's meetings with Mignini, dating from 2002 through the Kercher murder in 2007. They report Carlizzi immediately linked the Kercher killing to the MOF cases, and also to Mignini's own legal troubles as all part of the same conspiracy, warning that Mignini would be hit by a car and it would be claimed to be an accident. Spezi/Preston say Mignini met with Carlizzi in Perugia within days of the killing (I presume before the Nov5/6 interrogtions of Knox/Sollecito), but no transcript of the meeting has been released.

So this is an area of disagreement. Spezi has repeatedly linked Mignini to Carlizzi, you say its false. How would I know who to believe?

I don't have the time to focus on the other points in this post. The reasons to distrust Spezi and Preston sounds almost like a joke to me; I am afraid if I pick up just a statement from some interview by Preston to some American TV network I would have to spend hours to list and show where he says something false, so big the concentration of obvious falsehoods in anything he says about the MoF or Narducci cases.
You say how could you decide what is the true version about Carlizzi, between what I say and the Preston/Spezi version.

Now, a good way to start would be to seek some Italian news sources about events. For example, did the news ever report of a cooperation between Mignini and Carlizzi? (and by the way, what did Carlizzi say herself about the point?)
Or did the news report that Mignini arrested her? What were the actual judicial events, and what do the trial paper say?

Take Il Corriere della Sera:

http://archiviostorico.corriere.it/2005/novembre/30/Inchiesta_sul_Mostro_Arrestato_legale_co_9_051130061.shtml

Caso Narducci, l' accusa: pressioni sui testi
Inchiesta sul Mostro - Arrestato un legale
Ai domiciliari l' ex avvocato della famiglia del medico perugino. Indagato per calunnia


FIRENZE - Ancora un colpo di scena, l' ennesimo, nell' inchiesta sulla morte del medico Francesco Narducci (trovato cadavere vent' anni fa nel lago Trasimeno), collegata alle indagini sul mostro di Firenze. Ieri a Perugia è stato arrestato Alfredo Brizioli, ex legale della famiglia Narducci. L' avvocato, già indagato per sostituzione di cadavere, è accusato di favoreggiamento, calunnia e violenze contro alcuni testimoni del processo che avrebbe cercato di influenzare. Diversi gli episodi contestati al legale e decisiva per il pm, Giuliano Mignini, l' intercettazione di una telefonata effettuata dopo l' ultima udienza nella quale l' avvocato dice: «È andata bene, li abbiamo bloccati». Secondo l' accusa, l' avvocato Brizioli avrebbe cercato di influenzare la testimonianza di due pescatori del lago Trasimeno per far loro modificare una precedente dichiarazione sul recupero del corpo di Narducci. Altri teste, sempre secondo il pm Mignini, avrebbero poi dovuto fare i conti con il legale. Tra questi un uomo che aveva parlato in aula di un presunto ruolo nell' inchiesta della massoneria (citato per danni da Brizioli) e una dipendente di un negozio (denunciata per calunnia) nel quale l' avvocato aveva acquistato una muta da sub. Secondo il magistrato inquirente quella muta sarebbe stata utilizzata dal legale in occasione del ritrovamento del cadavere del medico. I difensori di Brizioli, Gianni Spina e Luciano Ghirga, hanno definito l' arresto del collega «un atto gravissimo» ritenendo del tutto infondata la prova dell' intercettazione telefonica. «La frase "Li abbiamo bloccati" pronunciata da Brizioli è solo normale dialettica processuale tra accusa e difesa e niente di più», hanno spiegato i due difensori. L' avvocato Brizioli è la seconda persona arrestata durante il dibattimento. Il 29 ottobre ai domiciliari era finita Gabriella Carlizzi, giornalista e scrittrice. La donna è stata accusata di calunnia contro due testimoni. Complessa e ricca di colpi di scena anche l' inchiesta. La famiglia di Narducci ha sempre rifiutato l' ipotesi del delitto, mentre il pm Mignini è convinto che il giovane medico perugino sia stato assassinato perché conosceva i segreti del mostro di Firenze. Accusato di essere uno dei mandanti del delitto è Francesco Calamandrei, ex farmacista di San Casciano Val di Pesa.

Marco Gasperetti
30 novembre 2005 - Corriere della Sera

This article from Nov. 30. 2005 gives information about few facts: Mignini had arrested Gabriella Carlizzi on Oct. 29., who was being held under house arrest, one month later on Nov. 29 he arrested Alfredo Brizioli, a family friend of Narducci.
He had accused Carlizzi of calunnia (for having placed false testimony against uninvolved people) and charged Brizioli with making pressures against witnesses.

Carlizzi was not just a self-proclaimed "psychic", but a known fraud, I mean she had records, was prosecuted by the Procura of Perugia for fraud already in 1995, then later, after the Narducci story, she got another conviction for calunnia against in an unrelated case.
As for what the judicial paper say, facts are that after Carlizzi made her delusional declarations about Narducci to the prosecution, Mignini charged her with calunnia and put her under house arrest, then ordered a psychiatric assessment about Carlizzi's mental faculties in order to allow the judge to decide whether she was mentally capable or totally crazy.

Press agency AdnKronos reports of her being put under house arrest by Mignini:


http://www1.adnkronos.com/Archivio/AdnAgenzia/2005/11/02/Cronaca/MOSTRO-FIRENZE-CASO-NARDUCCI-DOMANI-CARLIZZI-ASCOLTATA-DAL-GIP_182142.php

MOSTRO FIRENZE: CASO NARDUCCI, DOMANI CARLIZZI ASCOLTATA DAL GIP
LA DONNA E' ACCUSATA DI CALUNNIA NEI CONFRONTI DI DUE TESTIMONI

Perugia, 2 nov. - (Adnkronos) - Il Gip di Perugia, Marina De Robertis, ha fissato per domani alle 15.00 presso la stazione dei carabinieri ''Tomba di Nerone'' a Roma, l'interrogatorio della scrittrice e giornalista Gabriella Pasquali Carlizzi, che dal 28 ottobre scorso e' stata posta agli arresti domiciliari su richiesta del pm, Giuliano Mignini.
Carlizzi e' accusata di calunnia nei confronti di due testimoni nell'inchiesta sulla morte del medico perugino Francesco Narducci, tra cui l'avvocato Pietro Fioravanti ex difensore di Pietro Pacciani. Alla riapertura del caso la scrittrice era stata interrogata per due giorni e nel corso di una conferenza stampa aveva fatto il nome di altre 4 persone che potevano fornire notizie utili all'indagini.

In diverse occasioni la donna avrebbe accusato i due testimoni di avere detto il falso, affermazioni ritenute calunniose dal pm che ha ottenuto l'ordinanza di custodia cautelare.

On Nov 10 AdnKronos reports about further charges against Carlizzi:

http://www1.adnkronos.com/Archivio/AdnAgenzia/2005/11/10/Cronaca/MOSTRO-FIRENZE-CASO-NARDUCCI-GABRIELLA-CARLIZZI-RIMANE-AI-DOMICILIARI_185116.php

(I don't paste this one above for brevity);

A discussion reports about the psychiatric expert assessment Mignini requested against Carlizzi:

http://it.discussioni.ufo.narkive.com/Mi5WZVW9/gabriella-pasquali-carlizzi-e-francesco-maria-narducci-che-relazione-vi-fu-tra-i-due

"A proposito, le ultime notizie riguardanti la suddetta signora che
apprendiamo dal sito www.lagiustainformazione.it,
ci informano sul fatto che la medesima, dopo aver presenziato
all'udienza davanti al Tribunale del Riesame, che doveva esprimersi
sulla eventuale revoca della misura cautelare a cui è stata
sottoposta, ha saputo che il pm di Perugia Dott. Mignini ha presentato richiesta al Gip De Robertis di ordinare una perizia psichiatrica proprio a suo carico.

Detta perizia dovrebbe valutare se la stessa sia capace di intendere e di volere , il suo grado di pericolosità sociale, e soprattutto se sia in grado di partecipare alle prossime udienze fissate per l'incidente probatorio".

Gabriella Carlizzi did seek publicity by claiming she had inside knowledge that could link the Narducci case to the Monster of Florence case. Mignini listened to her claims, charged her with false testimony, put her under arrest and requested a psychiatric examination.

But I'd like to go back now to the first source, Il Corriere della Sera. The name of the person arrested in November 2005 is Alfredo Brizioli. He is a lawyer and family friend of the Narduccis. He is also a former criminal, although few know about this, since when he was in his twenties he belonged to gang of young burglars and looters all sons of very upper class fa,milies, called "I Camaleonti". He is the son of a man who was in a very sensitive position in the Government in the sixities, so much that when he was caught as a young criminal, an amnesty was passed by the Italian Parliament that was cut for the gangmen case. As a lawyer, his career has been very peculiar, since he basically never worked as a lawyer; he worked as a salesman and trader. I say never worked as a lawyer, except on - maybe - three of four cases. Or a number as small as that. Those cases have to do with Narducci or with the Monster of Florence case. And he reportedly always worked unpaid. There is one more case where he is working: he the defence attorney of Raffaele Sollecito in the criminal defamation case at the court of Florence.
Brizioli is the main co-defendant of Mario Spezi in the 20-suspects Narducci sidetracking case.

 

[Numbers]

Sorry, bad link. Vaduva v Romania (2014) 27781/06

An interesting case - the applicant was first acquitted and then convicted on appeal by the prosecutor. The conviction was confirmed by the Romanian Supreme Court. There were witnesses (secret agents) never cross-examined, and telephone intercept tapes never allowed to be examined by the defense or neutral experts.

ECHR found a violation of Article 6. Too bad it appears to have taken almost 8 years to reach judgement.

 

[Samson]

delete duplicate post

 

[Samson]

Mach, while you defend and even praise Mignini, as an outsider, I see a man who in the Kercher case incarcerated three people, based on a wrongful accusation by one of the three. This statement was the sole evidence that survived the initial detention order in front of Matteini, all other evidence being proved wrong and irrelevant, including the suggestion Sollecito withdrew an alibi. This pattern is very apparent in the preceding MOF case from everything I have read. My understanding is he had around 20 people detained, all of whom were released.
Why defend someone whose track record is so appalling?
Do you see why posters here look with suspicion at everything he does or says?

 

[Desert Fox]

An interesting case - the applicant was first acquitted and then convicted on appeal by the prosecutor. The conviction was confirmed by the Romanian Supreme Court. There were witnesses (secret agents) never cross-examined, and telephone intercept tapes never allowed to be examined by the defense or neutral experts.

ECHR found a violation of Article 6. Too bad it appears to have taken almost 8 years to reach judgement.

That is the problem. . . .Any appeal by Amanda and Raff will be probably be over five years before the ECHR looks at the case. I am hoping that the US politely refuses any attempts to extradite Amanda but not much can help Raff.

 

[Machiavelli]

Mach, while you defend and even praise Mignini, as an outsider, I see a man who in the Kercher case incarcerated three people, based on a wrongful accusation by one of the three. This statement was the sole evidence that survived the initial detention order in front of Matteini, all other evidence being proved wrong and irrelevant, including the suggestion Sollecito withdrew an alibi. This pattern is very apparent in the preceding MOF case from everything I have read.
Why defend someone whose track record is so appalling?

The detention order was re-issued by a judge panel presieded over by judge Ricciarelli on Dec. 5, it included several additional reasons (above all, the main piece of evidence for judge Ricciarelli was the the autopsy report; but there was also the kitchen knife).
That Sollecito didn't provide an alibi to Knox is not a suggestion, and the fact that he changed his story is a core element of the various detention orders, not just of the first provisional decree of fermo by Mignini (the first detention order would have expired after 72 hours under Italian law; it's provisional, it's the other orders that matter).
The fact that Sollecito changed his story is on police papers and in his statement to Matteini. It's not just one person (Knox) bringing elements against him, it is two people, including he incriminating himself.
While two elements from the initial order proved wrong, in the following days there was a costant flow of further elements that kept on piling up against Knox and Sollecito (kitchen knife DNA, calunnia charge, blood DNA in the bathroom, autopsy report, bra clasp DNA, bare footprints on bathmat, bare footprints in corridoor).

 

[Samson]

The detention order was re-issued by a judge panel presieded over by judge Ricciarelli on Dec. 5, it included several additional reasons (above all, the main piece of evidence for judge Ricciarelli was the the autopsy report; but there was also the kitchen knife).
That Sollecito didn't provide an alibi to Knox is not a suggestion, and the fact that he changed his story is a core element of the various detention orders, not just of the first provisional decree of fermo by Mignini (the first detention order would have expired after 72 hours under Italian law; it's provisional, it's the other orders that matter).
The fact that Sollecito changed his story is on police papers and in his statement to Matteini. It's not just one person (Knox) bringing elements against him, it is two people, including he incriminating himself.
While two elements from the initial order proved wrong, in the following days there was a costant flow of further elements that kept on piling up against Knox and Sollecito (kitchen knife DNA, calunnia charge, blood DNA in the bathroom, autopsy report, bra clasp DNA, bare footprints on bathmat, bare footprints in corridoor).

The further flow of evidence is item by item challenged of course. I studied your long series on the bathmat, and found no merit for example, and of course the bra clasp can logically be noble cause corruption, as it looked intentional the collection method. Fingerprints were known to be on the door for example, and deliberately transferred. Guilters should be uneasy about the statistical unlikelihood of discovering the exact piece of evidence required to substantiate a charge of sexual assault and murder against Sollecito.
But apart from all that, there was no deliberate withdrawal of an alibi by Sollecito as claimed, this is provably completely accidental, and we know this because, and this is crucial:
No one has ever challenged Sollecito's claim he asked for a calendar to determine whether he was describing Halloween night, for which his statement was accurate, or the night after, on which Meredith was killed.

 

[Machiavelli]

The further flow of evidence is item by item challenged of course. I studied your long series on the bathmat, and found no merit for example, and of course the bra clasp can logically be noble cause corruption, as it looked intentional the collection method. Fingerprints were known to be on the door for example, and deliberately transferred. Guilters should be uneasy about the statistical unlikelihood of discovering the exact piece of evidence required to substantiate a charge of sexual assault and murder against Sollecito.
But apart from all that, there was no deliberate withdrawal of an alibi by Sollecito as claimed, this is provably completely accidental, and we know this because, and this is crucial:
No one has ever challenged Sollecito's claim he asked for a callendar to determine whether he was describing Halloween night, foe which his statement was accurate, or the night after, on which Meredith was killed.

Sollecito withdrew his alibi not just on that night. Also on the subsequent hearing before Matteini on Nov. 8. He never expressed any concern that he was uncertain about the date. What he said to Matteini is just "I had told a false story, what I say now is true, what I told on my first version was false" (quotation marks are my paraphrase, this is the content). That is the same thing he said very clearly in his police statement of Nov. 5 "I told a load of ******** in my previous statement because Amanda convinced me to do so and I didnt think about inconsistencies". He puts in clear he is telling the truth as opposed to the previous version, no uncertainty.
There is also a series of other inconsistencies, of non-credible or disproven elements in Sollecito's police statement by the way.

 

[carbonjam72]

I don't have the time to focus on the other points in this post. The reasons to distrust Spezi and Preston sounds almost like a joke to me; I am afraid if I pick up just a statement from some interview by Preston to some American TV network I would have to spend hours to list and show where he says something false, so big the concentration of obvious falsehoods in anything he says about the MoF or Narducci cases.
You say how could you decide what is the true version about Carlizzi, between what I say and the Preston/Spezi version.

Now, a good way to start would be to seek some Italian news sources about events. For example, did the news ever report of a cooperation between Mignini and Carlizzi? (and by the way, what did Carlizzi say herself about the point?)
Or did the news report that Mignini arrested her? What were the actual judicial events, and what do the trial paper say?

Take Il Corriere della Sera:

http://archiviostorico.corriere.it/2005/novembre/30/Inchiesta_sul_Mostro_Arrestato_legale_co_9_051130061.shtml



This article from Nov. 30. 2005 gives information about few facts: Mignini had arrested Gabriella Carlizzi on Oct. 29., who was being held under house arrest, one month later on Nov. 29 he arrested Alfredo Brizioli, a family friend of Narducci. He had accused Carlizzi of calunnia (for having placed false testimony against uninvolved people) and charged Brizioli with making pressures against witnesses.
Carlizzi was not just a self-proclaimed "psychic", but a known fraud, I mean she had records, was prosecuted by the Procura of Perugia for fraud already in 1995, then later, after the Narducci story, she got another conviction for calunnia against in an unrelated case.
As for what the judicial paper say, facts are that after Carlizzi made her delusional declarations about Narducci to the prosecution, Mignini charged her with calunnia and put her under house arrest, then ordered a psychiatric assessment about Carlizzi's mental faculties in order to allow the judge to decide whether she was mentally capable or totally crazy.

Press agency AdnKronos reports of her being put under house arrest by Mignini:


http://www1.adnkronos.com/Archivio/AdnAgenzia/2005/11/02/Cronaca/MOSTRO-FIRENZE-CASO-NARDUCCI-DOMANI-CARLIZZI-ASCOLTATA-DAL-GIP_182142.php




On Nov 10 AdnKronos reports about further charges against Carlizzi:

http://www1.adnkronos.com/Archivio/AdnAgenzia/2005/11/10/Cronaca/MOSTRO-FIRENZE-CASO-NARDUCCI-GABRIELLA-CARLIZZI-RIMANE-AI-DOMICILIARI_185116.php

(I don't paste this one above for brevity);

A discussion reports about the psychiatric expert assessment Mignini requested against Carlizzi:

http://it.discussioni.ufo.narkive.com/Mi5WZVW9/gabriella-pasquali-carlizzi-e-francesco-maria-narducci-che-relazione-vi-fu-tra-i-due



Gabriella Carlizzi did seek publicity by claiming she had inside knowledge that could link the Narducci case to the Monster of Florence case. Mignini listened to her claims, charged her with false testimony, put her under arrest and requested a psychiatric examination.

But I'd like to go back now to the first source, Il Corriere della Sera. The name of the person arrested in November 2005 is Alfredo Brizioli. He is a lawyer and family friend of the Narduccis. He is also a former criminal, although few know about this, since when he was in his twenties he belonged to gang of young burglars and looters all sons of very upper class fa,milies, called "I Camaleonti". He is the son of a man who was in a very sensitive position in the Government in the sixities, so much that when he was caught as a young criminal, an amnesty was passed by the Italian Parliament that was cut for the gangmen case. As a lawyer, his career has been very peculiar, since he basically never worked as a lawyer; he worked as a salesman and trader. I say never worked as a lawyer, except on - maybe - three of four cases. Or a number as small as that. Those cases have to do with Narducci or with the Monster of Florence case. And he reportedly always worked unpaid. There is one more case where he is working: he the defence attorney of Raffaele Sollecito in the criminal defamation case at the court of Florence.
Brizioli is the main co-defendant of Mario Spezi in the 20-suspects Narducci sidetracking case.

Thanks Mach, this is all very interesting, I'm going to look it over. I am particularly interested in the Carlizzi-Mignini connection alleged by Spezi/Preston.

One point I didn't follow though, was if Mignini himself had had Carlizzi arrested for calumnia relating to the testimony she gave him, and placed her under house arrest, then why would Mignini also charge Alfredo Brizioli, for having 'had accused Carlizzi of calunnia (for having placed false testimony against uninvolved people) and charged Brizioli with making pressures against witnesses'?

If Carlizzi is not a witness for Mignini, or a source of information for Mignini, then why would Mignini charge Brizioli for 'making pressures against a witness'? If Carlizzi isn't a witness, how can Brizioli be charged with pressuring her AS a witness?

But thanks again for your very thorough researches.

 

[Samson]

Sollecito withdrew his alibi not just on that night. Also on the subsequent hearing before Matteini on Nov. 8. He never expressed any concern that he was uncertain about the date. What he said to Matteini is just "I had told a false story, what I say now is true, what I told on my first version was false" (quotation marks are my paraphrase, this is the content). That is the same thing he said very clearly in his police statement of Nov. 5 "I told a load of ******** in my previous statement because Amanda convinced me to do so and I didnt think about inconsistencies". He puts in clear he is telling the truth as opposed to the previous version, no uncertainty.
There is also a series of other inconsistencies, of non-credible or disproven elements in Sollecito's police statement by the way.

It is clear that what Sollecito described was Halloween night, but that this account was delivered to Amanda and her interrogation team as an account of the night of the murder. If we can settle on this as factual, then everyone can develop their theories from this point. It is my belief that both Amanda and Raffaele were blindsided by being converted from helpful witnesses to suspects, and reliability of their statements from that point must be analysed accordingly.
From time to time everyone should explore scenarios from an opposite perspective, and I doubt you have done this with a disciplined mental approach.

 

[Machiavelli]

It is clear that what Sollecito described was Halloween night, but that this account was delivered to Amanda and her interrogation team as an account of the night of the murder. If we can settle on this as factual, then everyone can develop their theories from this point. It is my belief that both Amanda and Raffaele were blindsided by being converted from helpful witnesses to suspects, and reliability of their statements from that point must be analysed accordingly.
From time to time everyone should explore scenarios from an opposite perspective, and I doubt you have ever done this with a disciplined mental approach.

It may be clear to you, because you decide so, and maybe after Sollecito suggested this in his book. But it is far from being clear in the trial papers. When you read Sollecito's witness reports to the police and Matteini, you can only realize that it is a series of non-credible declarations, riddled with unrealistic elements, dramatically changing and contradicted by verious sources. If such a witness is sincere, then he must be for sure a very mentally confused person and an unreliable witness.
But things go much further. Besides the evidence that he is a liar by comparing his contradictory statements, there are also external contradictions. Just to say: he puts forward a "computer alibi" that it is not just unsupported, it is actually proven false. He was not writing at his computer, neither writing as he claims in his testimonies nor surfing the net, neither runnung some othr application. It is not true that computer disk data was destroyed (the judicial expert report says data were recovered). But just to say about one element.

 

[sept79]

.
.
The detention order was re-issued by a judge panel presieded over by judge Ricciarelli on Dec. 5, it included several additional reasons (above all, the main piece of evidence for judge Ricciarelli was the the autopsy report; but there was also the kitchen knife).

Really? Does anyone need any more proof about the objectivity of the poster with the Machiavelli handle?

 

[Machiavelli]

Thanks Mach, this is all very interesting, I'm going to look it over. I am particularly interested in the Carlizzi-Mignini connection alleged by Spezi/Preston.

One point I didn't follow though, was if Mignini himself had had Carlizzi arrested for calumnia relating to the testimony she gave him, and placed her under house arrest, then why would Mignini also charge Alfredo Brizioli, for having 'had accused Carlizzi of calunnia (for having placed false testimony against uninvolved people) and charged Brizioli with making pressures against witnesses'?

If Carlizzi is not a witness for Mignini, or a source of information for Mignini, then why would Mignini charge Brizioli for 'making pressures against a witness'? If Carlizzi isn't a witness, how can Brizioli be charged with pressuring her AS a witness?

But thanks again for your very thorough researches.

Brizioli wasn't charged for making pressure on Carlizzi, he was charged of making pressures on other witnesses who have nothing to do with Carlizzi, two of them were fishermen who worked on the Trasimeno lake if I remember correctly. The Corriere della Sera article reports about them. Another person was an employee of a store that used to sell diving and fishing equipment. There was also a man who testified in the courtroom about the Perugian Freemasonry.
Carlizzi has nothing to do with Brizioli's activities. She was never a target of him. Carlizzi jumped on this case as much as she jumped in numerous Italian "mysteries" (Moro, Cogne, Pecorelli, Via Poma etc.) claiming she had solution and knowledge about the perpetrators and could tell about this exoteric conspiracy.

 

[Samson]

It may be clear to you, because you decide so, and maybe after Sollecito suggested this in his book. But it is far from being clear in the trial papers. When you read Sollecito's witness reports to the police and Matteini, you can only realize that it is a series of non-credible declarations, riddled with unrealistic elements, dramatically changing and contradicted by verious sources. If such a witness is sincere, then he must be for sure a very mentally confused person and an unreliable witness.
But things go much further. Besides the evidence that he is a liar by comparing his contradictory statements, there are also external contradictions. Just to say: he puts forward a "computer alibi" that it is not just unsupported, it is actually proven false. He was not writing at his computer, neither writing as he claims in his testimonies nor surfing the net, neither runnung some othr application. It is not true that computer disk data was destroyed (the judicial expert report says data were recovered). But just to say about one element.

Marijuana will effortlessly create a mentally confused person and an unreliable witness, especially when 96 hours have passed since its use.
That is precisely why it is important to find elements that are consistent, and regard these as the anchors from which every other account orbits.
So we have Popovich Amelie and Naruto, as well as the phones off, the 6 30 awakening and so on. We also have CCTV footage to propose absence from the crime scene. These combine to afford an alibi which is far more important than the verbal attempts 96 hours after the murder.

 

[Samson]

I should add other things such as witnesses hearing a scream when Meredith was long dead, and Quintavalle and Curatolo being joke witnesses manufactured by the prosecution and an ambitious journalist. But this is slightly off topic, which is explaining Sollecito's interrogation.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

The detention order was re-issued by a judge panel presieded over by judge Ricciarelli on Dec. 5, it included several additional reasons (above all, the main piece of evidence for judge Ricciarelli was the the autopsy report; but there was also the kitchen knife). That Sollecito didn't provide an alibi to Knox is not a suggestion, and the fact that he changed his story is a core element of the various detention orders, not just of the first provisional decree of fermo by Mignini (the first detention order would have expired after 72 hours under Italian law; it's provisional, it's the other orders that matter).
The fact that Sollecito changed his story is on police papers and in his statement to Matteini. It's not just one person (Knox) bringing elements against him, it is two people, including he incriminating himself.
While two elements from the initial order proved wrong, in the following days there was a costant flow of further elements that kept on piling up against Knox and Sollecito (kitchen knife DNA, calunnia charge, blood DNA in the bathroom, autopsy report, bra clasp DNA, bare footprints on bathmat, bare footprints in corridor).

In the order of detention 6/11/2007, it states “…he was found in possession of a switchblade that could be compatible in the abstract, by size and type (total length 18 cm., of which 8.5 cm. was blade), the object that must have produced the most serious injury to the neck of the victim.”

But then, on the same date there is a Search and Seizure which states, “…inside the top drawer of the kitchen cutlery drawer, was found a large knife overall length 31cm., about which 17 cm of the blade and 14cm of the handle.”

So they have a blade of 8.5 cm they claim is compatible with the injury and, on the same day, they take a knife with a blade of 17 cm and suspect that is also the weapon. It doesn't seem they knew what they were looking for and they were just taking random knives until one would come close to matching what they needed.

 

[Machiavelli]

So they have a blade of 8.5 cm they claim is compatible with the injury and, on the same day, they take a knife with a blade of 17 cm and suspect that is also the weapon. It doesn't seem they knew what they were looking for and they were just taking random knives until one would come close to matching what they needed.

It's correct, they just picked all the dangerous knives he possessed. They didn't have the autopsy report on the 6th, not even the print analysis report actually, and even if they had, they would still anyway have no clue about what exactly the knife would look like. But it's not that they knew what they "needed" something, they couldn't know about the features of what they "needed".

 

[Diocletus]

It's correct, they just picked all the dangerous knives he possessed. They didn't have the autopsy report on the 6th, not even the print analysis report actually, and even if they had, they would still anyway have no clue about what exactly the knife would look like. But it's not that they knew what they "needed" something, they couldn't know about the features of what they "needed".

You mean they didn't have a clue, except for the image of the knife printed in blood in the murder room. Other than that, I suppose they would have been clueless

 

[Machiavelli]

You mean they didn't have a clue, except for the image of the knife printed in blood in the murder room. Other than that, I suppose they would have been clueless

Exactly, they saw the print, but they didn't have a print analysis about that yet.

 

[Numbers]

I strongly suggest (as I believe others have) that when the police heard Raffaele's statements during his interrogation that the police interpreted as his dropping of Amanda's "alibi", both Amanda and Raffaele became suspects according to the ECHR and required lawyers and she a neutral, fair translator. They also should have been informed of their right to remain silent.