Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[platonov]

More confusion

"...he (RS) has credited in spontaneous statements the notion that he was in her company from the night of 1st November 2007 until the morning of 2nd November 2007.

Raffaele Sollecito, moreover, mounted a defense at trial by which he seeks to objectively prove that he must have been at his home during the period within which the murder was committed and in his spontaneous statements he has never distanced himself from the statements of Amanda Marie Knox. In the last statement he made to this Court on 6 November 2013, he once again testified to his shared innocence with his co-defendant, saying:

[116](...) As I was saying ... at that particular time, the furthest thing from my mind was to be so cruel and disrespectful towards a human life. And it is for this reason that I would like to first of all make you realize how absurd these charges against me are. Us, even, to put it in the plural, against us. Because, at that point in my life, I was a week away from graduation and I had my life ahead of me. No. There’s no way. It is unreasonable to accuse me of such a thing without first having a basis (...). (p. 52 of the transcript of the hearing before the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Florence, 6 November 2013)

The conclusion of this brief note is that, in the absence of defense assertions to the contrary on the part of Raffaele Sollecito and, moreover, noting the consistent spontaneous statements made by the defendant, who still places himself with Amanda Marie Knox between the evening of 1 November 2007 and the morning of 2 November 2007, the Court deems that it must consider the alibi provided by Amanda Marie Knox as the only version of events provided by the defendants and valid for both or, at least, not contradicted by either of them."
Nencini report Pages 130/131.

And a fat lot of good it has done either of them....as I was saying earlier.

Even Nencini's motivations report implies heavily that they were together from 9:30 pm (Nov 1) until "around 12:30 am (Nov 2)", given that Nencini says that no third party can vouch for their assumed mutual alibi.

snip

Then Nencini quotes in full in the next half-dozen pages, Knox's trial testimony from 2009, when Nencini says Knox is constructing hers (and Raffaele's) alibi. And he says they are essentially the same alibi... "Raffaele Sollecito, moreover, mounted a defense at trial by which he seeks to objectively prove that he must have been at his home during the period within which the murder was committed, and in his spontaneous statements, he has never distanced himself from the statements of Amanda Marie Knox."

Again the alibi confusion


You missed this part from p129 [115] which is the precursor to both your extracts...

On this point, it is appropriate first of all to pause, in the light of arguments made by the Sollecito Defense in the final arguments, because these emphasized the need to distinguish between the positions at trial of the two defendants.

So in dealing with the Sollecitto defence argument he finds they were together committing the murder & that he (RS) cant have it both ways –he was with her but he wasn’t i.e. his spontaneous statements don’t deny he was with AK but his defence want a separate defence.

Presumably this also fed into the decision to deny the separation of the 2 cases requested by the RS defence but AFAICS this isn’t explicitly stated in the report.

So in short the hedging by RS doesn’t work - now where have we seen that before.

Given the confusion over a short word like NO its not surprising that large blocks of text would cause problems.

To simplify
1/ Finding they were together committing a murder does not an alibi make.
2/ If a defendant wishes to mount a separate defence he should do so – one way or off/on alibis don’t work.



Ps Did you guys find the section dealing with the legal ruling that RS wasn’t providing an alibi?
Let me know if you cant – I’ll provide the page no.

 

[Samson]

Again the alibi confusion


You missed this part from p129 [115] which is the precursor to both your extracts...



So in dealing with the Sollecitto defence argument he finds they were together committing the murder & that he (RS) cant have it both ways –he was with her but he wasn’t i.e. his spontaneous statements don’t deny he was with AK but his defence want a separate defence.

Presumably this also fed into the decision to deny the separation of the 2 cases requested by the RS defence but AFAICS this isn’t explicitly stated in the report.

So in short the hedging by RS doesn’t work - now where have we seen that before.

Given the confusion over a short word like NO its not surprising that large blocks of text would cause problems.

To simplify
1/ Finding they were together committing a murder does not an alibi make.
2/ If a defendant wishes to mount a separate defence he should do so – one way or off/on alibis don’t work.



Ps Did you guys find the section dealing with the legal ruling that RS wasn’t providing an alibi?
Let me know if you cant – I’ll provide the page no.

platanov

Did Raffaele kill Meredith?
This is an important question for you to answer.
Your answer can only be yes, no, or I don't know.

 

[Vibio]

People here try to help you understand this case, they really do.

The one who understands nothing is you.

The Knoxians simply make up "facts" as they please and then discuss them as if they are true for pages.

The interrogation rooms did not have recording equipment. And ...no ...recorded interrogations are not required in Italy.

Just as in the majority of US States back in 2007 recorded interrogations were not required.

Here is a list of States that mandate recorded interrogations as of 2013. Note how short it is. Note too the dates when recorded interrogations were mandated.

http://www.reid.com/pdfs/20140331a.pdf

In the the US, for the most part, it's the cops word against yours.

But don't let the true facts stop you.

Continue with the BS that recorded interrogations are required by law in Italy. No problem.

 

[anglolawyer]

The one who understands nothing is you.

The Knoxians simply make up "facts" as they please and then discuss them as if they are true for pages.

The interrogation rooms did not have recording equipment. And ...no ...recorded interrogations are not required in Italy.

Just as in the majority of US States back in 2007 recorded interrogations were not required.

Here is a list of States that mandate recorded interrogations as of 2013. Note how short it is. Note too the dates when recorded interrogations were mandated.

http://www.reid.com/pdfs/20140331a.pdf

In the the US, for the most part, it's the cops word against yours.

But don't let the true facts stop you.

Continue with the BS that recorded interrogations are required by law in Italy. No problem.

Vibio

Why did Mignini say something about budgetary constraints precluding recording if your version of things is correct? The quote is a few posts back.

 

[toto]

The one who understands nothing is you.

The Knoxians simply make up "facts" as they please and then discuss them as if they are true for pages.

The interrogation rooms did not have recording equipment. And ...no ...recorded interrogations are not required in Italy.

Just as in the majority of US States back in 2007 recorded interrogations were not required.

Here is a list of States that mandate recorded interrogations as of 2013. Note how short it is. Note too the dates when recorded interrogations were mandated.

http://www.reid.com/pdfs/20140331a.pdf

In the the US, for the most part, it's the cops word against yours.

But don't let the true facts stop you.

Continue with the BS that recorded interrogations are required by law in Italy. No problem.

What bothers me is the hours of tapped phone calls which helped the prosecution not one bit, but arguably what could have been compelling evidence of Amanda confessing, had she done so was not recorded. Surely some alarm bells have to be rung here.

 

[Welshman]

The rights of Amanda and Raffaele were abused during the interrogation. They were not officially told they were suspects, they were denied access to lawyers and the interrogations were not taped. If the prosecution had a mountain of hard evidence and a slam dunk case, why did the police have to reesort to dubious and underhand tactics during the interrogations. I recall some time ago that RandyN made the point that the police do not need to resort to these tactics if they have a strong case. There has been debate how Amanda and Raffaele were treated during the interrogations. I feel there is an important point to make. Prior to Meredith's murder Mignini had a long history of misconduct. After Amanda and Raffaele were arrested, the police and prosecution released false information to the media, lied in court, suppressed evidence and committed fraud. Italy has a very corrupt police and judicial system where abuses are commonplace. Are we expected to believe that mistreating suspects during interrogations would be out of character for a bunch of corrupt scumbags with dubious histories in a country with a corrupt and dysfuctional police and judicial system.

 

[Vibio]

the Knoxians might want to read this about taped interrogations. And this is NYC.... not Alabama:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/24/nyregion/police-didnt-tape-baby-hope-questioning.html

 

[anglolawyer]

What bothers me is the hours of tapped phone calls which helped the prosecution not one bit, but arguably what could have been compelling evidence of Amanda confessing, had she done so was not recorded. Surely some alarm bells have to be rung here.

The twenty nine missing ones might have been helpful to one side or the other. Wonder which one ...

 

[Vibio]

why did the police have to reesort to dubious and underhand tactics during the interrogations.

Such as? And were you there? And have you read the trial tapes of the questioning all of those there that night... the line questioning by the defense, and the answers given?

 

[Welshman]

Vibio claims there is no legal requirement in Italy to tape interrogations. If this is true, why have the police never used this as a justification for not taping the interrogations?

 

[Kauffer]

Facts

The one who understands nothing is you.

The Knoxians simply make up "facts" as they please and then discuss them as if they are true for pages.

The interrogation rooms did not have recording equipment. And ...no ...recorded interrogations are not required in Italy.

Just as in the majority of US States back in 2007 recorded interrogations were not required.

Here is a list of States that mandate recorded interrogations as of 2013. Note how short it is. Note too the dates when recorded interrogations were mandated.

http://www.reid.com/pdfs/20140331a.pdf

In the the US, for the most part, it's the cops word against yours.

But don't let the true facts stop you.

Continue with the BS that recorded interrogations are required by law in Italy. No problem.

What facts have the PI supporters made up? There are lots of candidates for "most outrageous made up fact" (MOMUP). My nomination is "mixed blood of Knox and Kercher". What would be yours?

 

[Vibio]

For the Know-Nothing Knoxians who go on and on and on and on and on about Mignini's comment about budgets and recording: please read the following comments by the NYC Police Department Chief John J. McCarthy:

"Only two detective squads — in the 67th Precinct in East Flatbush, Brooklyn, and the 48th Precinct in the Tremont section of the Bronx — currently record homicide interrogations, Mr. McCarthy said. In the other precincts that have video equipment, detectives are taping interrogations for only felony assaults and sex crimes.

Mr. McCarthy said the department was putting the new policy into effect as fast as it could. Detective squads are being trained to work while the camera is rolling. Precinct interview rooms require soundproofing. Camera angles and acoustics have to be tested to ensure the recordings capture statements no matter how quietly spoken.

“It’s not the flip of a switch,” Mr. McCarthy said. “You are building a recording studio in dozens of unique spaces across the city.”"

"In Albany, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo supported a bill that would have required the police to tape interrogations of suspects in homicide and rape cases. The measure failed to pass during the last session,"

Of course the Knoxians think it's only a matter of buying a 35 dollar Panasonic...


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/24/nyregion/police-didnt-tape-baby-hope-questioning.html

 

[platonov]

It's starting to make sense - the confusion

snip

Ps Did you guys find the section dealing with the legal ruling that RS wasn’t providing an alibi?
Let me know if you cant – I’ll provide the page no.

It seems I scanned over Bill W's post too quickly, mea culpa.
He did find it - see below.

But naturally he misunderstood it so all is well with the universe.

First off, Nencini shows himself a better jurist than griffinmill in this forum.... Nencini has a long section on page 94 of his decision why ANYTHING Sollecito said is inadmissibe at trial, because he selected his right not to speak (other than spontaneously) at trial:

Originally Posted by Nencini

For this reason, it would be highly illogical and, more to the point, contrary to law, for such procedural conduct to result in the opposite of what was intended, namely in the usability of the evidence.

It follows that the questioning of Raffaele Sollecito at his arraignment before the G.I.P. of the Court of Perugia at 1:14 pm on 8 November 2007 with the assistance of his then [95] legal counsel, Mr. Tiziano Tedeschi of the Bari bar, must be considered unusable in this case.

Bill, Bill, Bill.
Nencini is most assuredly not stating that RS's spontaneous declarations are inadmissible. Where did you get that idea ??
He says that they have to be taken on their merits.

What he is saying refers to the inadmissibility of the GIP hearing on Nov8 which contains the hedged 'alibi'.

C'mon its really not that complicated. Is it ????

 

[toto]

The twenty nine missing ones might have been helpful to one side or the other. Wonder which one ...

Sorry, 29 missing what? Not sure to what you are referring. I think the more factual information there is the more it would help A and R.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The bugged conversation of 4 November redux

On p. 119 of Follain's book (Death in Perugia), he describes how a conversation between Raffaele and Amanda was surreptitiously recorded at the station on 4 November. Dempsey (Murder in Italy) describes the same recorded conversation on pp. 125-126. We've been through this before.

 

[toto]

For the Know-Nothing Knoxians who go on and on and on and on and on about Mignini's comment about budgets and recording: please read the following comments by the NYC Police Department Chief John J. McCarthy:

"Only two detective squads — in the 67th Precinct in East Flatbush, Brooklyn, and the 48th Precinct in the Tremont section of the Bronx — currently record homicide interrogations, Mr. McCarthy said. In the other precincts that have video equipment, detectives are taping interrogations for only felony assaults and sex crimes.

Mr. McCarthy said the department was putting the new policy into effect as fast as it could. Detective squads are being trained to work while the camera is rolling. Precinct interview rooms require soundproofing. Camera angles and acoustics have to be tested to ensure the recordings capture statements no matter how quietly spoken.

“It’s not the flip of a switch,” Mr. McCarthy said. “You are building a recording studio in dozens of unique spaces across the city.”"

"In Albany, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo supported a bill that would have required the police to tape interrogations of suspects in homicide and rape cases. The measure failed to pass during the last session,"

Of course the Knoxians think it's only a matter of buying a 35 dollar Panasonic...

A cassette tape would have been relatively acceptable!

 

[anglolawyer]

For the Know-Nothing Knoxians who go on and on and on and on and on about Mignini's comment about budgets and recording: please read the following comments by the NYC Police Department Chief John J. McCarthy:

"Only two detective squads — in the 67th Precinct in East Flatbush, Brooklyn, and the 48th Precinct in the Tremont section of the Bronx — currently record homicide interrogations, Mr. McCarthy said. In the other precincts that have video equipment, detectives are taping interrogations for only felony assaults and sex crimes.

Mr. McCarthy said the department was putting the new policy into effect as fast as it could. Detective squads are being trained to work while the camera is rolling. Precinct interview rooms require soundproofing. Camera angles and acoustics have to be tested to ensure the recordings capture statements no matter how quietly spoken.

“It’s not the flip of a switch,” Mr. McCarthy said. “You are building a recording studio in dozens of unique spaces across the city.”"

"In Albany, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo supported a bill that would have required the police to tape interrogations of suspects in homicide and rape cases. The measure failed to pass during the last session,"

Of course the Knoxians think it's only a matter of buying a 35 dollar Panasonic...

Utter bollocks. You are the 'know nothing'. Have you ever been in a police interview room for a recorded interview? I have, many times. It's a tape recorder. That's it. Maybe a fancy one screwed to the table with two spools but that's all it is.

Answer Welshman's question: if it is not the law and/or not the custom and practise to record interviews, why didn't Mignini just say that?

 

[anglolawyer]

Sorry, 29 missing what? Not sure to what you are referring. I think the more factual information there is the more it would help A and R.

My understanding is the cops recorded a bunch of conversations between Amanda and Raffaele but somehow 'lost' them.

 

[Vibio]

It's a tape recorder. That's it. Maybe a fancy one screwed to the table with two spools but that's all it is.

Well gee wiz: not only is Mignini a liar but so is the NYC Police Department Chief John J. McCarthy.

 

[Welshman]

Such as? And were you there? And have you read the trial tapes of the questioning all of those there that night... the line questioning by the defense, and the answers given?

If Vibio had bothered reading my post, I described the abuses committed by the police.