Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

Mignini today dragged Raffaele Sollecito and Andrew Gumbel (in absentia) into a courtroom, for defamation concerning "Honor Bound".

The court has given until March 5th, for an Italian translation of the book to be presented.

I am looking at this through rose coloured glasses. Does Mignini REALLY want Sollecito's story legally in Italy, legally in Italian?

Other legal minds can sort that one out. I smell a curve-ball here, though.

 

[anglolawyer]

One day I will tell you about the "a'ha" moment I had in relation to Scott Peterson.

I put that 'allegedly' in there with you in mind.

But you are a man full of surprises. Just when I cave in to the pressure from the pro-guilt lobby, that there's not always motive, you try to yank be back into the rational world. Curses on you.

In Oct 2013 I was called on the carpet by both the pro-guilt-lobby and further by quirky innocenters from Seattle on the issue of proving Satanic rite. What I came up with was that at least it was in the wind - with Mr. Kercher's book, and with Barbie Nadeau's allegation that Comodi threatened to quit if that became "the motive". Kaosium has also found an early reference from John Follain.....

So letting this go for a second - yes, the issue at one time was that Mignini was speculating about something (Mach allows formal speculating, "Maybe she was out in the hall directing the murder!") - but it was a speculation about a plan meant for one day, that had to be delayed 24 hours due to.....

..... what? That everyone would be at a party? And 24 hours later both Knox and Sollecito thought they'd have commitments.... and when coincidentally, and separately, both those commitments vanished.... the poor victim was dead within the hour.

But, acc. to Mignini (early on at least) they had to communicate with Rudy, while not communicating with him because there is NO communication except for perhaps a nod and a wink at the piazza.... where the message was, "Remember the plan for last night? Well, the plan is ON for tonight!"

Back to the matter at hand. Is this not premeditation?

I think that's why the guilters on-line are so wedded to premeditation, where Machiavelli himself is now fighting tooth or nail to deny that Mignini had EVER postulated it. That seems to be a line in the sand here, at least for Mignini Machiavelli, seven years after all these ugly events.

Machiavelli fights tooth and nail to deny Mignini EVER claimed premeditation, while at the same time claiming it is too early to come up with a comprehensive narrative.

Ok, I'm convinced. How do I sign up for the PMF hate sites?

Don't do that!

If they want the knife, they are stuck with pre-med. If they drop the knife, they are stuck with Stefanoni.

 

[Bill Williams]

I put that 'allegedly' in there with you in mind.

I am now stuck to explain the computer activity before Scott left the house in the morning to go fishing in the bay. I have purposely and with malice aforethought kept this new conundrum from you for obvious reasons. You do not do, "I told you so," well.

Don't do that!

If they want the knife, they are stuck with pre-med. If they drop the knife, they are stuck with Stefanoni.

And this is what I mean by: you suffer fools poorly.

 

[anglolawyer]

Mignini today dragged Raffaele Sollecito and Andrew Gumbel (in absentia) into a courtroom, for defamation concerning "Honor Bound".

The court has given until March 5th, for an Italian translation of the book to be presented.

I am looking at this through rose coloured glasses. Does Mignini REALLY want Sollecito's story legally in Italy, legally in Italian?

Other legal minds can sort that one out. I smell a curve-ball here, though.

With all the legal costs generated by this case it's a good thing Italy is bankrupt. When you're bust, another few million makes no difference.

 

[Desert Fox]

Mignini today dragged Raffaele Sollecito and Andrew Gumbel (in absentia) into a courtroom, for defamation concerning "Honor Bound".

The court has given until March 5th, for an Italian translation of the book to be presented.

I am looking at this through rose coloured glasses. Does Mignini REALLY want Sollecito's story legally in Italy, legally in Italian?

Other legal minds can sort that one out. I smell a curve-ball here, though.

Who's job is it to translate into Italian?

 

[Diocletus]

Mignini today dragged Raffaele Sollecito and Andrew Gumbel (in absentia) into a courtroom, for defamation concerning "Honor Bound".

The court has given until March 5th, for an Italian translation of the book to be presented.

I am looking at this through rose coloured glasses. Does Mignini REALLY want Sollecito's story legally in Italy, legally in Italian?

Other legal minds can sort that one out. I smell a curve-ball here, though.

So they're pursuing a defamation claim based on a book that wasn't published in their country and that apparently no one can understand? OK . . .

Well, at least they have an abundance of qualified translators, like Donnino. And, when she's done translating, she can conduct a mediation.

I wish Sollecito's book had said: "Mignini's prosecution improperly and unethically withheld voluminous lab data."

 

[anglolawyer]

So they're pursuing a defamation claim based on a book that wasn't published in their country and that apparently no one can understand? OK . . .

Well, at least they have an abundance of qualified translators, like Donnino. And, when she's done translating, she can conduct a mediation.

I wish Sollecito's book had said: "Mignini's prosecution improperly and unethically withheld voluminous lab data."

Yeah, might as well be hung for a sheep.

 

[Bill Williams]

So they're pursuing a defamation claim based on a book that wasn't published in their country and that apparently no one can understand? OK . . .

Well, at least they have an abundance of qualified translators, like Donnino. And, when she's done translating, she can conduct a mediation.

I wish Sollecito's book had said: "Mignini's prosecution improperly and unethically withheld voluminous lab data."

Yeah, might as well be hung for a sheep.

Perugia Today is calling this, "calunnia".

Now I am really confused. Is this another instance of stellar news reporting?

 

[Desert Fox]

Perugia Today is calling this, "calunnia".

Now I am really confused. Is this another instance of stellar news reporting?

Maybe it is like every scandal now uses "-gate" to describe it in US reporting

 

[Planigale]

I let alone #1 because too complicated now. #3 I'm sorry, but thus evidence is absolutely relevant, it has nit been dismissed at all - but in the minds of forum posters - and there is no connection between Knox's blood on the murder scene in the bathroom and her blood on the pillow. The blood drop on the tap is independent and determinant evidence. It is directly linked with the fact that Knox's statements about relating it to her ear bleeding a week before were not credible. The fact that she lies is relevant evidence. Her own admission that the stain was not there the previous evening is relevant evidence. The fact that it is intrinsically unlikely that the stain was there on the tap for days with nobody cleaning it - also given Meredith's previous complaints and her annoyance about blood traces the bathroom, which se couldn't stand - is relevant evidence. The fact that Knox's not knowing if she bled in the bathroom is a non credible statement, is relevant evidence. And these pieces of evidence must be weighted altogether.
So the presence of blood drops from Amanda Knox in the bathroom is determinant evidence, it is connected to the murder scene; it is also connected by analogy with the presence of mixed traces of blood or luminol.
So the assumption of Knox's blood on the murder scene is well grounded, and this is an independent element that raises probability that Knox's blood was at the insertion of the blade.

As for #2, Berti & Barni definitely say body fluids from Amanda Knox. This is what biological fluid from Amanda Knox means; no chance thus could refer to the liquid sample. Fluidi biologici means body fluids, and they are from Knox.

'Fluidi biologica' means biological fluid. It is chosen deliberately to be neutral so it does not make any implications about the origin of the material. You are completely reversing the intent of the phrase. Elsewhere the phrase 'materiale biologico' is used about the same sample (Chris they listened to you).

In this report there is care taken to report only what was found, not to exaggerate or over interpret. The exact opposite of what Stefanoni does.

All that can be said was that DNA of Knox was found on the knife blade. No conclusions were drawn or could be drawn about the tissue of origin. It might be tears if Knox used the knife to cut onions, it might be epithelial if she held the knife in what we are told is the proper American way to use a kitchen knife, we just do not know. The least likely explanation is blood since no chemical or microscopic evidence of blood was found.

 

[Diocletus]

Yeah, might as well be hung for a sheep.

It's almost as good, though, because apparently what it does say is that Amanda was "forced" to sign the statements at the police station. So, I guess we'll at least find out for sure if there were any tapes of the interrogation. Well, unless this judge has smaller balls than Massei, in which case he won't bother to ask much less enforce an order to produce them.

I'll be happy to explain to them what "forced" means in this context.

 

[Bill Williams]

Yeah, might as well be hung for a sheep.

Hanged. You're welcome.

 

[Dougm]

It's almost as good, though, because apparently what it does say is that Amanda was "forced" to sign the statements at the police station. So, I guess we'll at least find out for sure if there were any tapes of the interrogation. Well, unless this judge has smaller balls than Massei, in which case he won't bother to ask much less enforce an order to produce them.

I'll be happy to explain to them what "forced" means in this context.

What I have always wondered is ... Do tapes exist? Did they record, just in case, and have hidden the tapes? Or did they not want any record, so they never turned on the machine?

If there are tapes, does someone have them buried in their backyard somewhere, so they can find them later in case they need them, or, given the potentially incriminating content (against the cops), are they at the bottom of the river somewhere?

 

[LondonJohn]

What I have always wondered is ... Do tapes exist? Did they record, just in case, and have hidden the tapes? Or did they not want any record, so they never turned on the machine?

If there are tapes, does someone have them buried in their backyard somewhere, so they can find them later in case they need them, or, given the potentially incriminating content (against the cops), are they at the bottom of the river somewhere?

I maintain a belief that there probably never were any tapes. I think that because I believe this was part of a premeditated, well-choreographed series of events, a key part of which involved extracting confessions using ethically- and legally-dubious methods. Therefore there could be no audio recording, since that would expose and prove the methods used.

In brief, I think the police and PM had decided that they knew what had happened, and that they'd decided this before the 5/6 Nov interrogations even started. I think they "knew" that Knox and Sollecito had both lied to them about their whereabouts on the night of the murder, and they "knew" that Knox had actually met with someone (whether or not they knew this person's identity as Lumumba at this early point is hard to gauge) and taken him to the cottage where he had assaulted and killed Kercher.

I think therefore that the plan was firstly to get Sollecito to confess that Knox had actually left his apartment on the murder night, and that he'd been lying to protect her. With that confession, the police would confront Knox and get her to confess that she had indeed met with Lumumba and taken him to the cottage where he had killed Kercher.

The problem for the police and PM (and I believe it was a problem they had encountered and "solved" in a similar way many times previously.....) was that they needed to deny both Knox and Sollecito access to lawyers - even though they were clearly considered suspects of crimes - since access to lawyers would jeopardise the chances of confessions. So they deliberately called them "witnesses". This also conveniently gave them the required get-out clause regarding recording of the interrogations. They didn't want any recordings to be made because they knew they would probably need to use *ahem* unorthodox techniques to extract the confessions.

And the last step in this little drama was (I believe) the way in which Mignini artfully extracted the "spontaneous declaration" from Knox. Again, I believe this was a tried and trusted way of circumventing the law, such that the PM and prosecutor might have a judicially-admissible confession for use in trial (they knew that on account of their prior game of keeping the suspects falsely categorised as "witnesses", the initial confessions would not be admissible).

 

[Dougm]

I maintain a belief that there probably never were any tapes. I think that because I believe this was part of a premeditated, well-choreographed series of events, a key part of which involved extracting confessions using ethically- and legally-dubious methods. Therefore there could be no audio recording, since that would expose and prove the methods used.

In brief, I think the police and PM had decided that they knew what had happened, and that they'd decided this before the 5/6 Nov interrogations even started. I think they "knew" that Knox and Sollecito had both lied to them about their whereabouts on the night of the murder, and they "knew" that Knox had actually met with someone (whether or not they knew this person's identity as Lumumba at this early point is hard to gauge) and taken him to the cottage where he had assaulted and killed Kercher.

I think therefore that the plan was firstly to get Sollecito to confess that Knox had actually left his apartment on the murder night, and that he'd been lying to protect her. With that confession, the police would confront Knox and get her to confess that she had indeed met with Lumumba and taken him to the cottage where he had killed Kercher.

The problem for the police and PM (and I believe it was a problem they had encountered and "solved" in a similar way many times previously.....) was that they needed to deny both Knox and Sollecito access to lawyers - even though they were clearly considered suspects of crimes - since access to lawyers would jeopardise the chances of confessions. So they deliberately called them "witnesses". This also conveniently gave them the required get-out clause regarding recording of the interrogations. They didn't want any recordings to be made because they knew they would probably need to use *ahem* unorthodox techniques to extract the confessions.

And the last step in this little drama was (I believe) the way in which Mignini artfully extracted the "spontaneous declaration" from Knox. Again, I believe this was a tried and trusted way of circumventing the law, such that the PM and prosecutor might have a judicially-admissible confession for use in trial (they knew that on account of their prior game of keeping the suspects falsely categorised as "witnesses", the initial confessions would not be admissible).

That makes sense. I had asked the question since I have seen many people speculate that tapes exist, but have been hidden or destroyed.

This actually comes together in a logical fashion. If the police (and PM) had an established way of doing these things (and there is no reason to believe they did not), it makes sense that they would purposely NOT record an interrogation where they already knew that they would not want the specifics of what went on in those rooms known to others later. There is no value to them in having tapes of something they are 100% sure is going to be, at the very least, skirting the requirements of the law. THe odds of them later saying to themselves, "damn, if we had only taped that session!!" are very low.

And, since they are professional cops and have done this many times before, they knew what was going to happen, more or less. It was Amanda and Raffaele who had no clue.

 

[Bill Williams]

I maintain a belief that there probably never were any tapes. I think that because I believe this was part of a premeditated, well-choreographed series of events, a key part of which involved extracting confessions using ethically- and legally-dubious methods. Therefore there could be no audio recording, since that would expose and prove the methods used.

In brief, I think the police and PM had decided that they knew what had happened, and that they'd decided this before the 5/6 Nov interrogations even started. I think they "knew" that Knox and Sollecito had both lied to them about their whereabouts on the night of the murder, and they "knew" that Knox had actually met with someone (whether or not they knew this person's identity as Lumumba at this early point is hard to gauge) and taken him to the cottage where he had assaulted and killed Kercher.

I think therefore that the plan was firstly to get Sollecito to confess that Knox had actually left his apartment on the murder night, and that he'd been lying to protect her. With that confession, the police would confront Knox and get her to confess that she had indeed met with Lumumba and taken him to the cottage where he had killed Kercher.

The problem for the police and PM (and I believe it was a problem they had encountered and "solved" in a similar way many times previously.....) was that they needed to deny both Knox and Sollecito access to lawyers - even though they were clearly considered suspects of crimes - since access to lawyers would jeopardise the chances of confessions. So they deliberately called them "witnesses". This also conveniently gave them the required get-out clause regarding recording of the interrogations. They didn't want any recordings to be made because they knew they would probably need to use *ahem* unorthodox techniques to extract the confessions.

And the last step in this little drama was (I believe) the way in which Mignini artfully extracted the "spontaneous declaration" from Knox. Again, I believe this was a tried and trusted way of circumventing the law, such that the PM and prosecutor might have a judicially-admissible confession for use in trial (they knew that on account of their prior game of keeping the suspects falsely categorised as "witnesses", the initial confessions would not be admissible).

When the choice is wilful conspiracy vs. chaotic cock-up.....

Chaotic cock-up wins every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

 

[Numbers]

I maintain a belief that there probably never were any tapes. I think that because I believe this was part of a premeditated, well-choreographed series of events, a key part of which involved extracting confessions using ethically- and legally-dubious methods. Therefore there could be no audio recording, since that would expose and prove the methods used.

In brief, I think the police and PM had decided that they knew what had happened, and that they'd decided this before the 5/6 Nov interrogations even started. I think they "knew" that Knox and Sollecito had both lied to them about their whereabouts on the night of the murder, and they "knew" that Knox had actually met with someone (whether or not they knew this person's identity as Lumumba at this early point is hard to gauge) and taken him to the cottage where he had assaulted and killed Kercher.

I think therefore that the plan was firstly to get Sollecito to confess that Knox had actually left his apartment on the murder night, and that he'd been lying to protect her. With that confession, the police would confront Knox and get her to confess that she had indeed met with Lumumba and taken him to the cottage where he had killed Kercher.

The problem for the police and PM (and I believe it was a problem they had encountered and "solved" in a similar way many times previously.....) was that they needed to deny both Knox and Sollecito access to lawyers - even though they were clearly considered suspects of crimes - since access to lawyers would jeopardise the chances of confessions. So they deliberately called them "witnesses". This also conveniently gave them the required get-out clause regarding recording of the interrogations. They didn't want any recordings to be made because they knew they would probably need to use *ahem* unorthodox techniques to extract the confessions.

And the last step in this little drama was (I believe) the way in which Mignini artfully extracted the "spontaneous declaration" from Knox. Again, I believe this was a tried and trusted way of circumventing the law, such that the PM and prosecutor might have a judicially-admissible confession for use in trial (they knew that on account of their prior game of keeping the suspects falsely categorised as "witnesses", the initial confessions would not be admissible).

One of the most interesting things about the police and prosecutor "knowing" (or inventing) the "criminal conspiracy" prior to Nov.5/6 was that they had no concern that the forensics might not support their invention, even though there was the (obvious to non-Italian police) break-in. This suggests either supreme over-confidence in their invention or a willingness to invent forensic results to support it.

 

[Samson]

I am not laughing but... based on your concept Casey Anthony should be innocent; also Italian murderer Renato Vallanzasca should be; and the OJ Simpson exception is not easilly explainable.

Casey Anthony was found not guilty, but no one suggests she has a full truth she can tell that would make sense for a book. After all at very best she accused a person of kidnapping her child even as she was well aware she was dead, and where the body was.
I can't find a cite for any book that Renato Vallanzasca has written, so maybe you can supply one.
I have read none of the books by OJ, Raffaele or Amanda yet, but will do so. It will be interesting to see how much specific detail and alibi claims OJ made in his book during the period of the murder, whether he names the alternate suspect, and whether he made defamatory statements about law enforcement. I suggest there should be more substantial differences than similarities between his book and the others.
Meanwhile, what was Raffaele's motive for writing a defamatory book when he has been wrongly acquitted of a sexual assault and murder by Hellmann?
This question should be answered in a way that fully explains the benefits he expected to accrue to him, at a time when some people would thank their lucky stars and lie low.
His estate could have easily paid the legal fees in preference to the very dangerous game in which he is currently embroiled.

 

[Dougm]

One of the most interesting things about the police and prosecutor "knowing" (or inventing) the "criminal conspiracy" prior to Nov.5/6 was that they had no concern that the forensics might not support their invention, even though there was the (obvious to non-Italian police) break-in. This suggests either supreme over-confidence in their invention or a willingness to invent forensic results to support it.

From everything I have observed of their behavior, they value their own intuition over forensics anyway. So once they decide they know who did it, the rest is just a matter of finding some stuff to present in court. Giobbi made the mistake of proclaiming that in public, but from the way they hand waive away any mention of integrity of the forensic science or issues about rights violations, it appears they don't find those things important.

 

[Desert Fox]

When the choice is wilful conspiracy vs. chaotic cock-up.....

Chaotic cock-up wins every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

While that is true generally, you can see many cases where (to be blunt) the police simply lie. They will, for example, threaten the defendant with the death penalty and then lie about doing that on the stand. They will try to continue interrogate after the defendant asks for a lawyer.

Juries are stupid though with any confession, even if it appears as if the investigators are leading the defendant by the nose or the story does not match the scene, they accept confessions.