Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[js202]

So Mignini is receiving messages on his 2006 LG cell phone.

Very well done, Randy.

http://www.thinkersblog.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/cell-19-1.jpg

Typically obtuse and nonsensical response. If he had really wished, as he most certainly should, could Mignini have recorded his work as a "notary" on behalf of Amanda Knox, or could he not? Yes or no?

Anonymously insulting scientists and attorneys with equal aplomb, you've made a thoroughgoing fool of yourself here. Which would be fine, but with the obfuscating, the tu quoque fallacies, and all the rest, you've also squarely aligned yourself on the side of corrupt policing. Very well done, if one happens to be a crypto-fascist.

ETA For clarity's sake: Do you dispute that Mignini is using the device in the photo - as he points it in the direction of Lalli's mouth as he speaks - as a recording device?

 

[Desert Fox]

The conversation between Raffaele and Amanda was surreptitiously recorded and was later transcribed, as discussed in one of my previous messages. Napoleoni had the room bugged, and the microphone was in a cardboard box, according to Follain, p. 119.

From another case, I am concerned with transcribed evidence where various statement may transcribed creatively when it is not clear what the person actually said.

 

[Desert Fox]

What is strange is that when Mignini strolls into the interrogation room for what both he and Machiavelli claim is a 4 hour non-interrogation, filled with alleged spontaneous statements from Ms. Knox.... is that Mr. Mignini still finds an excuse not to flip the switch. I mean, you wouldn't want those spontaneous statements actually recorded would you?

It is interesting how often in the most important cases in a cop's career, such interrogations are not recorded.

 

[anglolawyer]

ROTFLMAO Could you just imagine if that had been done in this case... the Knoxians would be howling: "the cheap tape recorder ( it "cost peanuts") was not up to standards for interrogating a suspect", "those pauses are where the tape was erased", "if you listen closely you can hear her being coached"....

I'm Queen Marie as much as you are an Anglo Lawyer.

You can hoot with derision all you like (it's all you have, after all) but you are way off the mark about that. Pro-innocence critique of the technical aspects of the case are science-based. They stand up to scrutiny. There is no need to make smoke to escape from hostile fire as you are doing. None of the excellent pro-innocence experts who favour this discussion by posting here is afraid of anything. And none of them needs to resort to the childish antics to which you have been forced to descend in the course of a few posts. Like I said already, there is a very simple, fundamental reason for that.

 

[anglolawyer]

And of course that recorder and the procedures associated with it and the cassette tapes will have been fully compliant with UK law on recording interviews (i.e. the relevant section of PACE), otherwise it would have been essentially pointless to use it in the first place. I don't know what Vibio imagines a law-compliant interview tape recorder looks like (let alone what (s)he thinks it costs.....), but it's an extremely basic piece of kit that uses bog-standard compact cassettes to record to. The only "special" thing about it is that it records to two cassettes simultaneously - for reasons previously explained.

You are correct, LJ. As I said, mine was an 'interview under caution' and the resulting tape would have been usable in court to prove the interrogation had charges followed (happily, they didn't). It took place in an ordinary room with no special design. All they did was plug the thing in and press play.

 

[Vibio]

you've made a thoroughgoing fool of yourself here.

Only the Knoxians are foolish to believe that's a photo of Mignini voice recording the person in the photo with him. But that's just one more example of the BS they totally make up and then discuss as if it's true.

 

[Vibio]

You are correct, LJ. As I said, mine was an 'interview under caution' and the resulting tape would have been usable in court to prove the interrogation had charges followed (happily, they didn't). It took place in an ordinary room with no special design. All they did was plug the thing in and press play.

You really must tell the Chief Of Police of NYC that all he has to do is plug the thing in and press play. I mean what's the big deal?

 

[Bill Williams]

If Raffaele had never given Amanda an alibi, he'd never have been arrested.

There was initially suspicion about his Nikes.... until the counted the number of rings forming the pattern on the sole.

If Raffaele had not maintained his story, they never would have gone back 40+ days later to "find" the bra-clasp.

 

[anglolawyer]

You really must tell the Chief Of Police of NYC that all he has to do is plug the thing in and press play. I mean what's the big deal?

Let's not go round in stupid circles, eh Vibio? The difference between audio and video has already been explained. All you have proved is that you will swallow anything if it helps sustain a belief in guilt. You aren't rational.

 

[lonepinealex]

There was initially suspicion about his Nikes.... until the counted the number of rings forming the pattern on the sole.

If Raffaele had not maintained his story, they never would have gone back 40+ days later to "find" the bra-clasp.

But they had no reason to place him at the scene of the crime - he wasn't in Amanda's "confession". So why did they? Were the Nikes in play at the point of arrest or a few days later?

 

[RWVBWL]

So Mignini is receiving messages on his 2006 LG cell phone.

Very well done, Randy.

http://www.thinkersblog.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/cell-19-1.jpg

Hi Vibio,
I'm never embarrassed to be wrong,
so I looked closely at your linked photo:
http://www.thinkersblog.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/cell-19-1.jpg
heck I even zoomed in abit, ya know, looking for little details...

As I'm a photog,
well I see that the right side of the cell phone pic you present is white,
with a slight lite grey color.

Yet look further at the full size pic in The Repubblica article that Mary H linked.
which I will link again:
http://www.repubblica.it/2006/05/gallerie/cronaca/ragazza-perugia/2.html


The right side of the object in question in Mignini's hands shows as black,
and much wider for a small area right where the play, record, rewind and fast forward buttons should be.
Right where his right hand forefinger is. There is not a similar comparison on the image you linked.
And yes, I do have a voice recorder, my model is a Sony.


Is that a cell phone. Hmmmm.
Do you personally know that the PM Mignini used a 2006 LG phone then?

If so,
what is Mignini doing texting when Coroner Luca Lalli is telling him how Miss Kercher died?

Me?
I think that Mig's has a tape recorder in his hands.
But feel free to prove me wrong...

I'm off to the beach, Los Angeles is gorgeous today,
I'm still wearing boardshorts and am gonna swim in the flat waters off L.A. in a few minutes.
Have a Happy Thanksgiving...
RW

 

[Bill Williams]

What is strange is that when Mignini strolls into the interrogation room for what both he and Machiavelli claim is a 4 hour non-interrogation, filled with alleged spontaneous statements from Ms. Knox.... is that Mr. Mignini still finds an excuse not to flip the switch. I mean, you wouldn't want those spontaneous statements actually recorded would you?

It is interesting how often in the most important cases in a cop's career, such interrogations are not recorded.

The interesting thing is that Knox's alleged spontaneous statements ARE recorded. Yes they are.

Mignini even tells us in his CNN/Drew Griffin interview in 2010 who recorded them.

Mignini did. As if only a notary.

Four hours of spontaneous statements.... I mean, even if there were breaks for sleep and chamomile tea, what Mignini himself said he record as-if-a-notary must be somewhere. Raw notes?

Certainly notes in Italian mediated through Anna Donnino, who would translate Ms. Knox's spontaneous English?

Where are Mignini's raw notes? Do they not count as a "recording of the interrogation"?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

been there, done that with respect to the bugged conversation

On page 64 of Nadeau's book, she wrote, "The police, now suspicious of the pair, had set up a surveillance camera and taped their conversation in the waiting room." On pages 125-127 Candace Dempsey described the bugged conversation and quoted from a transcript. She wrote, "Homicide inspector Monica Napoleoni was happy to show the lovers into a bugged room that night." Anyone who does not have those books can use Google books to find the relevant passages. We covered this on or about 3 February in Continuation thread seven.

 

[Bill Williams]

On page 64 of Nadeau's book, she wrote, "The police, now suspicious of the pair, had set up a surveillance camera and taped their conversation in the waiting room." On pages 125-127 Candace Dempsey described the bugged conversation and quoted from a transcript. She wrote, "Homicide inspector Monica Napoleoni was happy to show the lovers into a bugged room that night." Anyone who does not have those books can use Google books to find the relevant passages. We covered this on or about 3 February in Continuation thread seven.

The notion that they had bugged rooms all over the Questura, but could not record an interrogation in an interrogation room, is..........

 

[Vibio]

The difference between audio and video has already been explained. All you have proved is that you will swallow anything if it helps sustain a belief in guilt. You aren't rational.

But not even audio is required in NYC...I mean gee... it costs nothing... what's all that talk about sound proof rooms comparable to a recording studio (see quote) and so forth, when all you have to do is press and play?

 

[LondonJohn]

I wasn’t referring to ECHR reporting it in the media, more likely any such information would come from Amanda’s representatives.

Why would Knox's representatives have any motivation to tell the world whether her ECHR application had passed or failed the initial screening hurdle? It might be something the Italian Supreme Court might be informed of in the run up to March 25th 2015, but I fail to see why it would be in her interests to broadcast it at this stage.

 

[LondonJohn]

But not even audio is required in NYC...I mean gee... it costs nothing... what's all that talk about sound proof rooms comparable to a recording studio (see quote) and so forth, when all you have to do is press and play?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10344264#post10344264

 

[Vibio]

On page 64 of Nadeau's book, she wrote, "The police, now suspicious of the pair, had set up a surveillance camera and taped their conversation in the waiting room." On pages 125-127 Candace Dempsey described the bugged conversation and quoted from a transcript. She wrote, "Homicide inspector Monica Napoleoni was happy to show the lovers into a bugged room that night."

And is this unusual? In NYC (or the many other places audio recording is not required in interrogations) you are telling me rooms, prisons and telephones are not bugged as part of an investigation?

 

[LondonJohn]

The notion that they had bugged rooms all over the Questura, but could not record an interrogation in an interrogation room, is..........

Perhaps even more germane is this: if we accept (and I think it's fairly undisputed) that the Perugia police were deliberately covertly recording Knox and Sollecito in the waiting room, then this obviously adds further weight to the argument that at least one of them was by then viewed as a suspect (of SOMETHING) by the police/PM. Therefore, of course, the interrogations that followed should, per the code of criminal procedure, have been electronically recorded.

I've mentioned it numerous times before, but it probably bears repeating once again: the European Bar Association (a professional association of top lawyers) has explicitly criticised the Italian authorities for routinely abusing the notion of "suspect", by deliberately withholding the official designation of "suspect" even though in practical terms the person clearly is a suspect. By doing so, the police can deny a person access to legal representation and can refrain from electronically recording interviews - both of which can be......... *helpful* when the police are trying to "persuade" someone they suspect of a crime to confess to it.

 

[anglolawyer]

But not even audio is required in NYC...I mean gee... it costs nothing... what's all that talk about sound proof rooms comparable to a recording studio (see quote) and so forth, when all you have to do is press and play?

Vibio, please. Give it a rest, will you? Most ordinary rooms are sufficiently sound proof without the need for special padding or dampening. I have been in many of them, both in police stations, prisons and government buildings. They use ordinary rooms. The introduction of taped interviews did not require special building operations at all these places, just recording equipment.

Even if that were wrong (and it isn't) it has been pointed out to you that the cops were bugging conversations and spending a fortune tapping thousands of telephone calls. They spent 189,000 euros on a stupid cartoon! They had money to burn.