Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[AmyStrange]

-

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?

-

It looks like a phone, but I have used my phone as a recording device by calling my work number and recording things on my work number voicemail system. Some phones even have audio-recording (and video) capabilities,

d

-

 

[Vibio]

Dear Chief of Police of NYC,

Contrary to what you say, all this business about sound proofing rooms and recording studios and so forth... according to internet poster "anglolawyer" most ordinary rooms are sufficiently sound proof without the need for special padding or dampening.

Just trying to be helpful,

Vibio

 

[Vibio]

It looks like a phone, but I have used my phone as a recording device by calling my work number and recording things on my work number voicemail system.

That's it!

 

[anglolawyer]

Dear Chief of Police of NYC,

Contrary to what you say, all this business about sound proofing rooms and recording studios and so forth... according to internet poster "anglolawyer" most ordinary rooms are sufficiently sound proof without the need for special padding or dampening.

Just trying to beg helpful,

Vibio

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Desert Fox]

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?

At least the way US law works, generally if the police violate the law in regards to a suspect, all evidence obtained by that method is considered unusable. It is often called "fruit of the poisoned tree." The suspect could be a mass murder and it does not matter (I believe there was a serial killer that all the evidence was dismissed because of this.)

Ever discussing, including with the pro guilt, indicates that you both must record the entire interrogation and all suspects must be provided a lawyer. In such a case, even if Amanda was guilty (which I don't think she is), such evidence needs to be dismissed.

If the New York legislation (or the Federal government) passed a law that all police questions must be recorded completely, interrogations not recorded or selectively recorded would be considered "Fruit of the Poisoned Tree"

Also, the European Court of Human Rights in Gäfgen v. Germany also in effect considers "Fruit of the Poisoned Tree" a violation of the defendants rights.

 

[LondonJohn]

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

I agree. I think that by 9pm on 5th November the police thought they knew what had happened on the night of the murder. I think they'd decided that Knox had left Sollecito's apartment mid-evening, had met up with another male (whether the police "knew" at that point that the male was Lumumba is a matter for further speculation), and had gone with this male to the cottage where events had escalated into a sexual assault and murder. I think they therefore "knew" that Knox was either directly or indirectly involved in the murder itself, and that Sollecito was lying to protect her.

I think that when Sollecito confusedly opened the door to Knox having left his apartment (probably under some *suggestive* police interrogation techniques...), they thought they were well on track. Ditto when Knox made her "confession/accusation". Remember: "she buckled and told us what we knew to be the truth". So Knox could be arrested and held under suspicion of involvement in the murder, and Sollecito could be arrested and held under suspicion of lying to the police (and the equivalent of perverting the course of justice).

But then Sollecito went back to firmly stating that Knox was indeed with him all that evening and night. This must have perplexed the police and PM. Why would Sollecito do this? Surely he wouldn't remain stupidly loyal to Knox, when the consequences of him doing so were potentially so great for him?

Then the police suddenly thought they knew why: their "expert" (hehe) told them that Sollecito's shoe prints had been found in Kercher's blood next to Kercher's body. "AHA!", the police and PM probably thought. "So he was never lying to protect Knox! He was lying because he too was there!"

And so it went. Of course, as soon as the shoe prints were exposed - by a child, no less! - as being definitively not from Sollecito's shoes but were in fact entirely compatible with Guede's shoes, the whole bra clasp fiasco miraculously appeared. And by then the police and PM were inescapably (in their minds) wedded to a version of events that had to include Knox and Sollecito in addition to Guede.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

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?

-

You are right of course Vibio, which implies that you agree ILE was as wrong as NYC was wrong in what they did (or didn't do).

Thank you for at least admitting ILE made a mistake in not recording the interrogations. It's good to know that some probably guilty believers can acknowledge that some mistakes were made by ILE also,

d

-

 

[LondonJohn]

Dear Chief of Police of NYC,

Contrary to what you say, all this business about sound proofing rooms and recording studios and so forth... according to internet poster "anglolawyer" most ordinary rooms are sufficiently sound proof without the need for special padding or dampening.

Just trying to beg helpful,

Vibio

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

 

[Dan O.]

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?

It's all spelled out in Matteini. There are three reasons given to hold Raffaele for trial: the matching of the Nike shoes to the prints found in Meredith's room, the knife that Raffaele carried with him to the interrogation (and it's cousin found in his apartment) and the fact that he was giving Amanda an alibi. The shoes would not be found until after his arrest. The police knew about the one knife even before the interrogations from the tapped telephone calls, the other would be found after the arrest. The alibi was always there except for the night of the interrogation where they got Raffaele to admit that he couldn't know Amanda was still there while he was asleep (except that he could because Amanda would have needed to ring the bell to get back in).

At the time of the arrest the Nikes were not in play, only Raffaele's shoe size could be called compatible.

I believe though that the police had every intention of arresting Raffaele that night even before the interrogation began. The previous day they had released to the press that Meredith's wounds were compatible with a pocket knife. This was after they had intercepted the phone call between Raffaele and his father in which it was discussed that Raffaelle always carried a knife. If Raffaele had shown up for the interrogation without the knife, that would have been included in the evidence of guilt against him.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

It's all spelled out in Matteini. There are three reasons given to hold Raffaele for trial: the matching of the Nike shoes to the prints found in Meredith's room, the knife that Raffaele carried with him to the interrogation (and it's cousin found in his apartment) and the fact that he was giving Amanda an alibi. The shoes would not be found until after his arrest. The police knew about the one knife even before the interrogations from the tapped telephone calls, the other would be found after the arrest. The alibi was always there except for the night of the interrogation where they got Raffaele to admit that he couldn't know Amanda was still there while he was asleep (except that he could because Amanda would have needed to ring the bell to get back in).

At the time of the arrest the Nikes were not in play, only Raffaele's shoe size could be called compatible.

I believe though that the police had every intention of arresting Raffaele that night even before the interrogation began. The previous day they had released to the press that Meredith's wounds were compatible with a pocket knife. This was after they had intercepted the phone call between Raffaele and his father in which it was discussed that Raffaelle always carried a knife. If Raffaele had shown up for the interrogation without the knife, that would have been included in the evidence of guilt against him.

-

That's not necessarily true. I have lived in many front-door locking apartments and all you need to do is prop the door open somehow (jamming the hinged part of the door with a rock, for example) or doing the same thing to a backdoor entrance (if it's not attached to an alarm) or just waiting until someone comes home and letting you in or ringing another apartment to let you in or borrowing Raffaele's key while he slept.

I'm not saying that's what happened, but it's possible

d

-

 

[Desert Fox]

That's not necessarily true. I have lived in many front-door locking apartments and all you need to do is prop the door open somehow (jamming the hinged part of the door with a rock, for example) or doing the same thing to a backdoor entrance (if it's not attached to an alarm) or just waiting until someone comes home and letting you in or ringing another apartment to let you in or borrowing Raffaele's key while he slept.

He could have thrown her to the wolves if he wished

 

[Bill Williams]

-


-

That's not necessarily true. I have lived in many front-door locking apartments and all you need to do is prop the door open somehow (jamming the hinged part of the door with a rock, for example) or doing the same thing to a backdoor entrance (if it's not attached to an alarm) or just waiting until someone comes home and letting you in or ringing another apartment to let you in or borrowing Raffaele's key while he slept.

I'm not saying that's what happened, but it's possible

d

-

Whatever it was which was possible, it satisfied the one person who is hanging his future liberty on it....

Raffaele.

He covers this in his book. The incredible thing, really, is that aside from seeing each other in court, they had no opportunity, really, to influence one another. After initially imagining the worst about Amanda, Raffaele simply put it together. To his own satisfaction.

And he has not wavered since. Three trials, one press conference, and one final appeal to Cassazione later.

And I think that Bongiorno/Sollecito knows that the real answer to the question:

If you're saying that Amanda went out, then what's this got to do with me?​

... will bring down the whole house of cards against both RS and AK.

It may not be at the March 2015 Cassazione decision.... but it will topple.

I just don't know why the pro-guilt lobby here won't answer the question - is Raffaele guilty?

 

[Bill Williams]

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.

It just occurred to me that maybe they only had one cardboard box with a microphone hidden in it in the whole Questura.

Maybe for the interrogation, the cardboard box was needed elsewhere. Yes, that must be it.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Whatever it was which was possible, it satisfied the one person who is hanging his future liberty on it....

Raffaele.

He covers this in his book. The incredible thing, really, is that aside from seeing each other in court, they had no opportunity, really, to influence one another. After initially imagining the worst about Amanda, Raffaele simply put it together. To his own satisfaction.

And he has not wavered since. Three trials, one press conference, and one final appeal to Cassazione later.

And I think that Bongiorno/Sollecito knows that the real answer to the question:

If you're saying that Amanda went out, then what's this got to do with me?​

... will bring down the whole house of cards against both RS and AK.

It may not be at the March 2015 Cassazione decision.... but it will topple.

I just don't know why the pro-guilt lobby here won't answer the question - is Raffaele guilty?

-

I tend to agree with you here Bill. It's kind of ridiculous for some of the probably guilty folks here to argue about alibis (or that computer activities were falsified) if they don't believe Raffaele was also guilty,

d

-

 

[AmyStrange]

-

He could have thrown her to the wolves if he wished

-

Yes he could have, but his DNA on the bra-clasp would have made that more difficult, but that doesn't mean that I'm saying that the DNA wasn't a result of contamination. There's enough evidence to suggest that's what happened, but the court doesn't seem to want to admit it, which is why he would have a problem with it.

Regardless of this and what Platonov argues, it's still in Raffaele and Amanda's favor that he never did, in my opinion,

d

-

 

[tsig]

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.

First they invent the story then argue about it then use the fact that there was an argument as proof of the story.

My favorite:

Amanda was deprived of food and water and beaten for more than 40 hours til she unknowingly accused her boss and placed herself at the scene.

 

[Bill Williams]

First they invent the story then argue about it then use the fact that there was an argument as proof of the story.

My favorite:

Amanda was deprived of food and water and beaten for more than 40 hours til she unknowingly accused her boss and placed herself at the scene.

Strawman arguments like this serve no one. Has anyone ever said this?

Please remember, the topic is: "First they invent the story then argue about it then use the fact that there was an argument as proof of the story".

 

[RWVBWL]

About that Audio Recorder, it's Digital, not Tape...

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?

Greetings JS202 and others,
I just had a bitchin' swim here in the waters off Los Angeles,
but yet the cell phone vs audio tape recorder discussion we are havin' here on The ISF is still weighin' on my mind.

So as I relax after my swim,
I dug up some old info, check it out, ok?

Audio recording devices come in Mini-Tape format, and in Digital format.

I personaly like the tapes,
they are much harder to get rid of, and years later,
you're kinda glad that you did not just delete and erase the recordings, ya know?

Anyways,
the audio tape recorders, of which I have 1,
are a bit thicker and bulkier that the digital ones,
which are much sleeker, as there is no tape to record.

So let's have another look at PM Mignini and the probable recording device held in his hand as he probably questioned and interviewed Coroner Luca Lalli outside of Miss Kercher's flat, ok?

This is PM Mignini and Coroner Lalli conversing:

This is a 2006 Sony Digital Audio recorder.

Model #Sony ICDB300 - 64MB Digital Voice Recorder
It's still available today, right now, on Amazon.com
http://www.amazon.com/Sony-ICDB300-Digital-Voice-Recorder/dp/B000EALQ4K


With 64 MB of storage capacity
it does not need tape cassettes.

Notice where the recording button is?
Right below the screen where PM Mignini's right* thumb is as he interviews Coroner Lalli...


This is a photo of a 2007 LG cell phone
similar to what Vibio believes PM MIgnini is recieving a text on as he talks with the Coroner.

Shouldn't PM Mignini be recording this conversation?

Compare the pix.

Doesn't this silver Sony Digital Audio Recorder look much more similiar
than the white LG cell phone photo posted by Vibio?


Would'n't PM Mignini have the best equipment that $$ could buy to do his duties as the local PM?
Heck, from what I read, The Questura is a modern building
and The 3rd Floor is off limits to visitors,
it's for Mafia Investigations, right?

That is not a cell phone in PM Mignini's hands, folks,
it is a Digital Audio Recorder.
RW

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Greetings JS202 and others,
I just had a bitchin' swim here in the waters off Los Angeles,
but yet the cell phone vs audio tape recorder discussion we are havin' here on The ISF is still weighin' on my mind.

So as I relax after my swim,
I dug up some old info, check it out, ok?

Audio recording devices come in Mini-Tape format, and in Digital format.

I personaly like the tapes,
they are much harder to get rid of, and years later,
you're kinda glad that you did not just delete and erase the recordings, ya know?

Anyways,
the audio tape recorders, of which I have 1,
are a bit thicker and bulkier that the digital ones,
which are much sleeker, as there is no tape to record.

So let's have another look at PM Mignini and the probable recording device held in his hand as he probably questioned and interviewed Coroner Luca Lalli at miss Kercher's flat, ok?

This is PM Mignini and Coroner Lalli:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=480&pictureid=9289[/qimg]

This is a 2006 Sony Digital Audio recorder.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=480&pictureid=9291[/qimg]

Model #Sony ICDB300 - 64MB Digital Voice Recorder
It's still available today, right now, on Amazon.com
http://www.amazon.com/Sony-ICDB300-Digital-Voice-Recorder/dp/B000EALQ4K


With 64 MB of storage capacity
it does not need tape cassettes.

Notice where the recording buttons are?
Right below the screen where PM Mignini's right finger is as he interviews Coroner Lalli..


This is a photo of a 2007 LG cell phone
similar to what Vibio believes PM MIgnini is recieving a text on as he talks with the Coroner.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=480&pictureid=9292[/qimg]
Shouldn't PM Mignini be recording this conversation?

Compare the pix.
Doesn't this silver Sony Digital Audio Recorder look much more similiar
than the white LG cell phone photo posted by Vibio?


Would'n't PM Mignini have the best equipment that $$ could buy to do his duties as the local PM?
Heck, from what I read, The Questura is a modern building
and The 3rd Floor is off limits to visitors,
it's for Mafia Investigations, right?

That is not a cell phone in his hands, folks,
it is a Digital Audio Recorder.
RW

-

I agree with you RW. What Mignini is holding in his hand looks more like the silver Sony Digital Audio Recorder than the 2007 LG cell phone Vibio posted,

d

-

 

[Desert Fox]

Yes he could have, but his DNA on the bra-clasp would have made that more difficult, but that doesn't mean that I'm saying that the DNA wasn't a result of contamination. There's enough evidence to suggest that's what happened, but the court doesn't seem to want to admit it, which is why he would have a problem with it.

Regardless of this and what Platonov argues, it's still in Raffaele and Amanda's favor that he never did, in my opinion,

I think if he did not argue that she was with him, the bra clasp would have never come up or would have been explained as contamination.

You second point is solid however. The guilty almost always turn on each other. They almost always will blame innocents as well if it can get them a lighter sentence.