Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[toto]

I suppose Amanda Knox's appeal will nevertheless throw everything they can into the ECHR which seems genuinely relevant, so will still document Hellmann's words if they help to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the conviction of calunnia. Obviously Amanda's team are wanting to find a way to disturb the foundations of her murder conviction and naturally see the calunnia verdict as unjust as the murder conviction and which, if somehow seen as illegitimate in some way will cast doubt on the rest of the case against A and R. I myself can't see the analogy (as being fair) between a stabbing and Amanda Knox's verbal and written outpourings, under the circumstances that appear to have been taking place. I am somewhat pessimistic about the ECHR going far and bet it will be years into the future if accepted at all. I will be delighted if it does work of course but fear that reading posts on and about March 25 next year will be somewhat dismal reading.

 

[Machiavelli]

Like them bugging his bar, for instance. I wonder how they even knew who he was?

In fact they didn't know who he was. They only knew that Knox used to work at "Le Chic" on some evenings, they wanted to capture who she met, who she talked to and what she said.

ETA and being highly interested in the 8.18 8.36 text exchange between Amanda and ..... Lumumba!

Obviously what attracted their attention was the Italian statement "Ci vediamo più tardi. Buona serata!" (translation: "We will meet later. Have fun!") on the murder evening, since she testified that she didn't meet with anyone.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)

Hellmann, in declaring the only thing we know is Meredith was murdered, announced a new trial, not an appeal hearing. The legal definitions became redundant with this opening statement by the judge.

But in fact, this is exactly what I meant when I was talking about the actual statements that make the Hellmann trial look illegitimate.
It is the Hellmann appeal itself that becomes censurable because of this statement. The Prosecution General should have impeached the court on this. Unfortunately they didn't. However Galati censured those words in the Supreme Court recors, factually pointed out those words to the attention of the Cassazione.
Indeed, the opening statements by Zanetti, and subsequently Hellmann, are censurable. They are not acceptable, mostly in an appeal trial; they do undermine the appearence of impartiality of the Hellmann court.

 

[Machiavelli]

A couple of points.

I must repeat it is unfortunate that Popper can post on a site dedicated to the destruction of Knox and Sollecito, who have been declared innocent by three high court judges, with no direct right of reply by anyone on this site he frankly ridicules. (...)

I have missed the story about these three "high court judges" who allegedly declared the "innocence" (?) of Knox and Sollecito.

 

[Samson]

In fact they didn't know who he was. They only knew that Knox used to work at "Le Chic" on some evenings, they wanted to capture who she met, who she talked to and what she said.



Obviously what attracted their attention was the Italian statement "Ci vediamo più tardi. Buona serata!" (translation: "We will meet later. Have fun!") on the murder evening, since she testified that she didn't meet with anyone.

You are rowing the same boat by implying they were "suspicious of" Amanda as soon as they read the text message. She was no longer a witness now, but a suspect, even if you discount the extraordinarily strong and numerous proofs outlined by others here that she was a suspect before arriving at the questura.
And by the way only one of those proofs is needed as a smoking gun that she was illegally interrogated without legal counsel.

 

[Numbers]

My feeling is with Popper about the self-evident nature of the issue shown by the stabbing example.
As for specific citations of case examples, one thing to be noted is that I did point to an example: {1} Luciano Aviello. I mentioned twice this example and it has been overlooked or removed from the view of the 'innocentisti' on this forum. Yes it is not an ECHR quote, but rather should point out to your attention the self-evident nature of the issue. What Popper says is not - in my opinion - to be interpreted as an "ad hominem" but rather it is pointing out that the 'innocentisti' mistake is on a too basic level; {2} your argument is wrong on an elementary principle, it's too elementary to be found in a ECHR ruling: the reason why you don't find it in the archives may be not because calunnia cases got hidden behind technicalities, but just because a complaint like the one you present won't reach that level, as potential "applicants" would simply refrain from attempt a submission at the ECHR or submissions would be declared inadmissible.
{3} It would be ridiculous to claim that prosecuting someone for calunnia is unjust because the calunnia was committed while the person was in custody without a lawyer. The argumentation "this crime wouldn't have happened if this condition was not created", like "because his/her lawyer would have suggested not to do that", is something that does not belong to the landscape of human rights. Almost every criminal action could be justified if this principle was valid: most crimes were committed because there was some situation, some feeling of necessity which cornered or pushed or incited or tempted a person into committing the crime. But this not a justification. You can't say this wouldn't have happened if this other person (like the police) did not do this or did that and this. There is no legal place for this argument.

A side note: in fact I also do not belive any nationalism on the part of Popper; I take his observation as a matter of facts: the Supreme Court of Cassation ruled in a very clear direction. In fact all courts had rejected the defensive claims about the alleged non-usability of Knox's statements. They lost their recourse at the High Court and lost multiple times on all levels: statements are usable.
As for nationalism, just to be more accurate on the point, we are not just Italians: we are Europeans, maybe I would say we (talking about people like myself and Popper) are Europeans above all. The ECHR belongs to us (and not to the United States). Incidentally it happened that Italian lawyers and judges contributed to shape a major part of the ECHR itself, as well as other judicial institutions in the world. {4} But an expectation that the ECHR would rule in contrast to the Italian Cassazione on an elementary principle of law, may be just not something realistic. And this is something just self-evident to most. This is what Popper says, what I understand. Or do you think the ECHR would say Luciano Aviello is being tried unfarily because he was in custody not assisted by a lawyer while he was committing his calunnia? Would that be a realistic ECHR ruling?

{highlighting and numbering added to quote}

Mach,
Thank you for your response to my post. At the risk of repetition, I will respond to some of your points.

First, overall, I will call attention to the fact that in your discussion of the ECHR and its relevance to the calunnia conviction against Amanda Knox, you nowhere have cited any ECHR Convention language or ECHR case-law. Your arguments are solely your unsupported opinion, which you are free to have.

Here is are responses to the your statements that I highlighted and numbered:

1. Aviello, to my knowledge, has not been accused or convicted of calunnia. Is there is any application he or his relatives have submitted to the ECHR for a State violation of his rights? If so, and you can inform the forum of some detail, that would be useful, but based on current knowledge, there is no relevance of Aviello to Amanda Knox's application to ECHR regarding her conviction for calunnia - statements made while she was in police custody and/or under interrogation by police, and did not have a lawyer and was not properly informed of her rights. In fact, there is no written and knowingly signed waiver of her rights to a lawyer or to the right to remain silent, to my knowledge. Such a waiver, according to ECHR case-law, is only valid if signed after counsel from a lawyer.

2. The arguments from ECHR case-law do not need to address calunnia specifically. The principles of common law apply to the ECHR case-law. Thus, no statement made by a person under police questioning or while in police custody without the presence and counsel of a lawyer may be used to convict a person whatsoever. I challenge you to find evidence in the ECHR case-law to support your position that "calunnia" - which is a statement, not a physical act such as is stabbing - committed while under police interrogation or custody without a lawyer is excluded from this general ECHR rule.

3. The response here is the same as for #2, with the addition that indeed, the "calunnia" committed by Amanda Knox was simply her repetition of "facts" forced upon her against her will by the police, in violation of CCP Article 188. She signed a statement in Italian that the police had prepared. The failure of the police to provide any contemporaneous written notes, audio recording, or video recording is indicative that inferences against the Italian Republic regarding violation of the rights of Amanda Knox can be made by the ECHR. I have read case-law where the ECHR states it is making such inferences against a State when the State fails to provide contemporaneous documentation.

4. The ECHR has ruled against the supreme courts of the various European States that are members of the Council of Europe numerous times; that is to be expected, because an applicant can file a complaint with the ECHR only if all domestic (State) rememdies have been exhausted. One example of the ECHR ruling against the Italian CSC is the case of Luca v. Italy. In that case, the ECHR judgment stated that the CSC ruling had not been pertinent.

And I am pleased that you and, I am sure, many other Italians regard themselves as Europeans as well as Italians and are proud of the Convention and the ECHR. I am sure that Italy will commit to speedily following the judgments of the ECHR, as the Italian Republic has solemnly obligated itself to do by treaty.

 

[Machiavelli]

You are rowing the same boat by implying they were "suspicious of" Amanda as soon as they read the text message. She was no longer a witness now, but a suspect, even if you discount the extraordinarily strong and numerous proofs outlined by others here that she was a suspect before arriving at the questura.

The investigators - as I said several times - were suspicious about Knox (but not only about Knox) from minute one as they arrived on the scene.
But they were not suspicious about Lumumba.

 

[Samson]

I have missed the story about these three "high court judges" who allegedly declared the "innocence" (?) of Knox and Sollecito.

Hellmann Zannetti and Heavey have all made extended public declarations that they are innocent beyond doubt.

 

[Numbers]

Maybe there are things he said that undermine the legitimacy of his judgement, but I guess that the things I think about whant I think to his illegitimacy, are not exactly the same that the 'innocentisti' think. But on the other hand, we should not forget also that the Hellmann-Zanetti court was an appeals court, I mean the Hellmann instance is an appeal not a trial. The proceedings for the charge of calunnia are based on the Massei ruling and end with the Cassazione finding. Almost everything in the Hellmann ruling was annulled, including partly the calunnia finding, namely the part in which Hellmann motivetes why the calunnia may have been not connected to the murder.
The Cassazione blasts this part of the Hellmann motivation and accepts the Galati reasons on this. In fact, this is one of the main points in the Cassazione annullment ruling.
So I think it's very incorrect to say the Cassazione accepts what Hellmann has to say about the calunnia, especially about the way Hellmann seeks alternative motives for the calunnia. The Cassazione explicitly points out that alleged (pay attention: not proven) just alleged, yet possible, "inquisitory eccesses" by the police, they are not a valid alternative explanation. This argument is not good to explain this calunnia - it is "manifestly illogical" - based on facts from the trial papers.

{Highlighting added to quote.}

Mach,

The CSC ruling on calunnia, and in particular the highlighted statement in your quote, does not explicitly take into account the Convention and ECHR case-law. There is no statement in your quote that clarifies why the CSC justified "overruling" or "ignoring" the ECHR.

In a quick search of HUDOC for criminal cases involving denial of the right to a fair trial (not right to a speedy trial) involving Italy, I found 84 cases with violations. I have not investigated each in detail, but one, for example, was Luca v Italy. Since (AFAIK) all criminal cases from Italy must receive final review from CSC (or whatever body would be able to provide the final domestic remedy), this suggests that ECHR has found against Italy in cases finalized by CSC at least 84 times in criminal cases.

 

[Numbers]

Buratti does not say Lumumba's phone was bugged before the 5th.

He says Lumumba's pub was bugged. Not to record Lumumba; it was bugged to record Knox (who used to work there). It was an "environmental interception".

Mach,
Thank you for this interesting post.

I point out how remarkable it is that the Italian police had the technology to bug and record a noisy pub to pick up the speech of Amanda Knox, but somehow were unable to do an audio or video recording of their own interrogation room to record their interaction with her.

ETA: And how many hours would Amanda have been at the pub from Nov. 2 until Nov. 5? Perhaps Dan O. or other posters have accurate information. I suspect that the bugging of the pub was directed at Patrick Lumumba.

{Highlighting added to quote.}

 

[Samson]

Mach,
Thank you for this interesting post.

I point out how remarkable it is that the Italian police had the technology to bug and record a noisy pub, but somehow were unable to do an audio or video recording of their own interrogation room.

{Highlighting added to quote.}

Numbers, I think this is a good point. It makes me think that Mignini was very careless mentioning budgetary constraints, and if there is such a thing as an Italian man regretting anything, he probably wishes he had been far more creative.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
1. Aviello, to my knowledge, has not been accused or convicted of calunnia. Is there is any application he or his relatives have submitted to the ECHR for a State violation of his rights? If so, and you can inform the forum of some detail, that would be useful, but based on current knowledge, there is no relevance of Aviello to Amanda Knox's application to ECHR regarding her conviction for calunnia - statements made while she was in police custody and/or under interrogation by police, and did not have a lawyer and was not properly informed of her rights. In fact, there is no written and knowingly signed waiver of her rights to a lawyer or to the right to remain silent, to my knowledge. Such a waiver, according to ECHR case-law, is only valid if signed after counsel from a lawyer.

Aviello has multiple charges of calunnia:


http://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2011/05/21/news/omicidio_meredith-16566127/

...Oltre a Mario Alessi verrà ascoltato anche Luciano Aviello, la cui testimonianza era stata richiesta dai legali di Amanda Knox. Aviello, ex camorrista detenuto nel carcere di Alba, è indagato per calunnia dalla procura di Perugia perché ha sostenuto, anche con lettere inviate alla corte di primo grado, che a uccidere Meredith fu suo fratello. Aviello ha anche sostenuto di sapere dov'è la vera arma del delitto, che lui stesso avrebbe raccolto, e le chiavi di casa di Meredith, mai ritrovate.

http://www.umbria24.it/meredith-aviello-%C2%ABho-detto-cose-false-concordate-con-gli-avvocati-di-sollecito-in-cambio-di-soldi%C2%BB/52791.html

(....) I motivi di prima e quelli di adesso I motivi per cui avrebbe accettato di raccontare falsità era che, secondo quanto dice al pubblico ministero, gli era stata garantito che la procura perugina non lo avrebbe indagato come invece poi è successo, perché si era affezionato a Raffaele Sollecito e perché doveva ricevere in cambio quei 30 mila euro che gli sarebbero serviti per cambiare sesso, come lui stesso ha detto più volte. Ma ora che ha ricevuto un avviso di conclusione delle indagini, che con Raffaele dice di non sentirsi più perché altrimenti nessuno avrebbe creduto alle sue parole, non ha motivo per continuare a mentire, mentre ne ha molti per provare ad alleggerire la sua posizione di indagato per calunnia.(...)

2. The arguments from ECHR case-law do not need to address calunnia specifically. The principles of common law apply to the ECHR case-law. Thus, no statement made by a person under police questioning or while in police custody without the presence and counsel of a lawyer may be used to convict a person whatsoever. I challenge you to find evidence in the ECHR case-law to support your position that "calunnia" - which is a statement, not a physical act such as is stabbing - committed while under police interrogation or custody without a lawyer is excluded from this general ECHR rule.

This is your own theory. And this, with all due respect, is only your opinion, which you are free to have.
You can quote case-law, but you are not really bringing a foundation for the interpretation of ECHR principles on the basis of your legal doctrine.
In fact between me and you there is an apparent a clash between legal doctrines. I maintain that you doctrine is unfounded and unreasonable. I maintain it is false under the principles or ECHR. It is not that that you don't cite cases, it's that your categorization of them is wrong.

On the other hand, whilt the ECHR does not have a specific precedent for calunnia, the Italian Cassazione does specifically address the calunnia with reference to the concept of "right of a suspect to defend himself", stating that the calunnia is not an action "covered" by the guarantees, rights and protections of the defendant (or suspect) which include a right to remain silent.
There are - by the way - also other kinds statements that would be "not covered" thus punishable as crimes themselves even if released within a police interrogation, for example: revealing classified information or military secrets, declaring false ID info, presenting a false document number, providing false information as a police informant. Those are crimes. If you commit them, you can hardly invoke the protection of the ECHR stating that they didn't let you talk with your lawyer first.

You place the calunnia within the set of the "statements", while I place calunnia among the "crimes", not covered by the clause of protection of suspect's rights.
This - if it was a serious matter - would be a clash between legal doctrine. Your 'doctrine' maximixes one specific right, acknowledged by ECHR, and makes it become absolute. You do not just apply it to the activity of releasing statements that fall within the rights of a defendant or suspect, you extend it to any statement.
But in fact, your doctrine is unreasonable; rights and principles are not absolute, they limited by the existence of other conflicting rights and principles.
Beyondf this there is also a point of common sense, not just about rights but also about likeliness and opportunity: Amanda Knox fingered the "village black man", she accused someone who was obviously innocent, multiple times, declining the accusation in multiple ways (interrogation, statement, written memorials with insinuations against multiple people, refusal to declare) while she carved an innocent role for herself. This is not something that typically an innocent person would do.

3. The response here is the same as for #2, with the addition that indeed, the "calunnia" committed by Amanda Knox was simply her repetition of "facts" forced upon her against her will by the police, in violation of CCP Article 188. She signed a statement in Italian that the police had prepared.

Anna Donnino testified that Amanda Knox made a statement, not that the police prepared one. Anna Donnino was a reliable witness. Then Amanda Knox wrote further false accusations and held a prolonged deceitful conduct. And judges found that Knox's statements were malicious.

The failure of the police to provide any contemporaneous written notes, audio recording, or video recording is indicative that inferences against the Italian Republic regarding violation of the rights of Amanda Knox can be made by the ECHR.

You are making up everything here. There is no "failure" to provide anything, and there is nothing "indicative". But there is a testimony by Anna Donnino, and witnesses are credible.

 

[Kauffer]

The investigators - as I said several times - were suspicious about Knox (but not only about Knox) from minute one as they arrived on the scene.
But they were not suspicious about Lumumba.

Then the police must clearly have understood that she was to be afforded the benefit of counsel! Where was her lawyer?

Does Buratti state that Lumumba's phone was not bugged?

 

[Machiavelli]

[Mach,
Thank you for this interesting post.

I point out how remarkable it is that the Italian police had the technology to bug and record a noisy pub to pick up the speech of Amanda Knox, but somehow were unable to do an audio or video recording of their own interrogation room to record their interaction with her.

But is it possible that you fail to see the difference?

First, you don't realize the potential cost of taping police interviews: you don't realize that under Italian law this would mean some lawyer from some party would always ask for transcripts, and judicial organs may be compelled to provide them: you cannot "give" out tapes without an official transcript. Audio transcripts cost about 5 euros per minute, there can be hundreds of hours of questionings on a case.
But also think about the danger: leaks and impossibility to keep those materials secret; like on the Garbatella case for example, the video interrogation of a suspect was leaked, the suspect in the end was innocent, but appeared as guilty in the video (because in fact, audio and video tapes are not obvious at all, they can be very misleading and basically false information).
Last, but not least: think about § 6 and 7 of the procedure code:

6. Delle notizie e delle indicazioni assunte senza l'assistenza del difensore sul luogo o nell'immediatezza del fatto a norma del comma 5 è vietata ogni documentazione e utilizzazione.
7. La polizia giudiziaria può altresì ricevere dichiarazioni spontanee dalla persona nei cui confronti vengono svolte le indagini, ma di esse non è consentita la utilizzazione nel dibattimento, salvo quanto previsto dall'articolo 503 comma 3

§ 6 says information obtained close to the event and without the assistence of lawyer cannot be documented, and § 7 points out that the investigators can collect spontaneous statements also from people who are under investigation, but those statements are not usable in the trial debate.
Think about the rationale behind these articles and paragraphs: they basically prohibit to document police activity of collecting statements or anyway suggest it should be confidential, for the investigation and not usable in a trial. § 5 also acknowledges that police can collect information in a situation of diminished defensce rights.

http://www.brocardi.it/codice-di-procedura-penale/libro-quinto/titolo-iv/art350.html

ETA: And how many hours would Amanda have been at the pub from Nov. 2 until Nov. 5? Perhaps Dan O. or other posters have accurate information. I suspect that the bugging of the pub was directed at Patrick Lumumba.

You suspect because you are biased.
But if you were unbiased, you should presume the witness statetements are truthful, and also assume their behaviour is likely consistent.

 

[Machiavelli]

deleted

 

[Numbers]

Aviello has multiple charges of calunnia:


http://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2011/05/21/news/omicidio_meredith-16566127/



http://www.umbria24.it/meredith-aviello-%C2%ABho-detto-cose-false-concordate-con-gli-avvocati-di-sollecito-in-cambio-di-soldi%C2%BB/52791.html





This is your own theory. And this, with all due respect, is only your opinion, which you are free to have.
You can quote case-law, but you are not really bringing a foundation for the interpretation of ECHR principles on the basis of your legal doctrine.
In fact between me and you there is an apparent a clash between legal doctrines. I maintain that you doctrine is unfounded and unreasonable. I maintain it is false under the principles or ECHR. It is not that that you don't cite cases, it's that your categorization of them is wrong.

On the other hand, whilt the ECHR does not have a specific precedent for calunnia, the Italian Cassazione does specifically address the calunnia with reference to the concept of "right of a suspect to defend himself", stating that the calunnia is not an action "covered" by the guarantees, rights and protections of the defendant (or suspect) which include a right to remain silent.
There are - by the way - also other kinds statements that would be "not covered" thus punishable as crimes themselves even if released within a police interrogation, for example: revealing classified information or military secrets, declaring false ID info, presenting a false document number, providing false information as a police informant. Those are crimes. If you commit them, you can hardly invoke the protection of the ECHR stating that they didn't let you talk with your lawyer first.

You place the calunnia within the set of the "statements", while I place calunnia among the "crimes", not covered by the clause of protection of suspect's rights.
This - if it was a serious matter - would be a clash between legal doctrine. Your 'doctrine' maximixes one specific right, acknowledged by ECHR, and makes it become absolute. You do not just apply it to the activity of releasing statements that fall within the rights of a defendant or suspect, you extend it to any statement.
But in fact, your doctrine is unreasonable; rights and principles are not absolute, they limited by the existence of other conflicting rights and principles.
Beyondf this there is also a point of common sense, not just about rights but also about likeliness and opportunity: Amanda Knox fingered the "village black man", she accused someone who was obviously innocent, multiple times, declining the accusation in multiple ways (interrogation, statement, written memorials with insinuations against multiple people, refusal to declare) while she carved an innocent role for herself. This is not something that typically an innocent person would do.



Anna Donnino testified that Amanda Knox made a statement, not that the police prepared one. Anna Donnino was a reliable witness. Then Amanda Knox wrote further false accusations and held a prolonged deceitful conduct. And judges found that Knox's statements were malicious.



You are making up everything here. There is no "failure" to provide anything, and there is nothing "indicative". But there is a testimony by Anna Donnino, and witnesses are credible.

Mach,

In all your above verbiage, you still have not provide a single citation of ECHR Convention or case-law.

Since Amanda was not at the cottage when the murder/rape was committed (by Guede), she would have no idea who did it. Thus, she could not have known with certainty that Patrick Lumumba, or any other "likely" person (that is, a male who might have been in or near Perugia the night of Nov. 1, 2007) suggested by the police (with the exception of Raffaele, since she was with him at his apartment that night) was either innocent or guilty of the crime. She signed a statement forced upon her by the police. The lack of contemporaneous independent documentation (such as audio or video recording) is indicative of this. Her subsequent confused statements or writings, all made in absence of the counsel of an attorney, are the result of the excesses of the police interrogation in bending her will and use of them for conviction are violations of her Convention rights.

Your implication that she named Patrick Lumumba because he was the "village black man" (your words) is the height of racism. Amanda Knox made no statements against Lumumba until she was coercively interrogated on the night of Nov. 5/6, 2007, and withdrew her statements later.

By the way, earlier you translated the end of Amanda's text message to Patrick Lumumba "Buona serata" as "Have fun" - but Google translates it as "good evening" - can you explain this discrepancy?

 

[Kauffer]

"Buratti states that 5 phones were tapped (Lumumba not among those) albeit not all of them before the 5th, and that three places were bugged." - Machiavelli

I see you just deleted this. Why?

 

[Machiavelli]

Then the police must clearly have understood that she was to be afforded the benefit of counsel! Where was her lawyer?

Does Buratti state that Lumumba's phone was not bugged?

Certainly he doesn't state he was bugged before the 5th (I can't rule out that he was; but he doesn't state that).
However he does say that Filomena Romanelli and Laura Mezzetti were bugged and also all the "friends" (and I understand all the cottage people).
He points out that the bugging of phones increased gradually, many people were added to the list over the course days and weeks as the investigation went on.
There seems to be a rather big number of people in the list. Are they all "suspects"?

 

[Machiavelli]

"Buratti states that 5 phones were tapped (Lumumba not among those) albeit not all of them before the 5th, and that three places were bugged." - Machiavelli

I see you just deleted this. Why?

Because I remembered incorrectly, I went back to read what Buratti said.

 

[Bill Williams]

Candice says Raffaele went to the police station at 21:40. There should at least be a hard number from Raffaele's phone records for when he was called. Amanda had already been kicked out to the elevator lobby, settled in to begin studying, got up to stretch and called Filomena when they approached her to begin questioning at 22:39. The judges report says Raffaele signed the first summary at 22:40.

Does Dan's post help? I think there's more stuff in the published records. What would be good to see are the police admin records. All these people need to get paid, the Rome cops accommodated, time sheets, requisitions etc etc. I think the evening was well planned, yet slightly derailed by Ms Knox arriving unexpectedly with Mr Sollecito, when they would have preferred to get her later after they'd worked him over.

Another way of looking at this is....

What did they have on Raffaele at the end of the all-nighter interrogation? They had what they claimed was the withdrawal of an alibi for Knox, and they had his shoes. They were fairly sure that he and Knox had spend 24/7 together since the horrid events of Thursday night - and they'd eavesdropped on their conversations which revealed nothing.

Fill in the rest. What, then, did this have to do with Raffaele?