Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Chris_Halkides]

injection logs

Machiavelli,

Number wrote, "What should be requested from the lab?
1. A disk containing raw data, including but not limited to the sample files, project files, injection lists, sample sheets and injection logs.
Start by reviewing the injection lists, sample sheets and injection logs, noting the time and date stamps on all runs to check the order in which samples were run and to make sure that controls were not substituted with those from a different day."

If Stefanoni released this information, it could verify or falsify what several of us have been saying, that some egrams were never produced, etc. They we would know who is right. Let's see the injection records.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

There's more than just the paper bag. The bag would have initially been near the wall and the chair would have been rotated the other way and pushed up against the bag giving access to sit in the chair to sit at the table. The sweatshirt would most likely be hung over the back of the chair for ready access.

The rock entering through the breaking window would be deflected by the inner shutter towards the table. Most of the rocks forward momentum would be converted into swinging open the inner shutter. As the rock falls into the bag, its momentum pushes the bag into the chair and the chair is pushed into the far leg of the table. It is this pushing against the chair that allows the rock to tear the edge of the bag.

-

In Follian's book he describes Mignini as thinking the break-in spot was fake, or something like that, the minute he saw it. He hadn't even gone upstairs yet to see the rock or the glass or nothing else. Very little evidence was collected to prove this. I wonder why?

Anyway, what exactly is it about the bag and the rock that proves it was staged? Where it landed? The fact that the bag was ripped, or that the rock was inside it?

And what exactly is the evidence that proves the rock was thrown from the inside? I find it interesting that someone would do that?

It's an interesting hypothesis. but I also wonder about it. just a little.

Maybe it's just me, but I remember the first time I saw a TV show, I can't for the life of me remember the name, where the detective in the show was able to prove the window was broken from the inside, because the glass was outside instead of inside. I was about ten-years-old then, and have seen, read or heard that detective trick in books, movies, and TV shows many, many times since than.

I'm just surprised that there are still people around who don't know this.

Because of this, I believe it more likely (if anyone threw the rock through the window) that it was thrown from the outside.

I also believe that it's plausible that Rudy could have staged it himself, if his story really is true that someone else murdered Meredith.

Let's say for the sake of arguement that Rudy and Meredith did have a date, and that window was broken before they got there, and the real murderer was waiting in the house for them.

To be honest, that one is not an easy one for me to wrap my mind around, but it is possible, no matter how improbable,

d

-

 

[Kauffer]

This is interesting Mach. So the only way Amanda could know that Lumumba was innocent, is if she were at the murder scene and knew that Patrick was not. If Amanda were innocent, she could not know Patrick wasn't guilty?

Therefore, Judge Hellman's conviction for calunnia is inconsistent with his acquittal for murder, according to this logic, no?

SO, if Amanda and Raf never left Raf's apartment that night, then it follows that Amanda cannot be convicted of Calunnia.

I wonder what the ECHR will make of this? I hope they say something soon, and start the process of exoneration for Amanda and Raf, why add further delay?

And when will MIgnini and the police be investigated for their criminal conduct in the interrogations of AR and RS? Surely someone has to pay for this mess?

Hellmann's reasoning is curious:

"the circumstances under which Lumumba’s name emerged in the course of the police interrogation (a message directed to him taken from the cellular phone of Amanda Knox), and the lack of evidence of a connection between Lumumba and Meredith Kercher [should have] allowed Amanda Knox, even if actually innocent herself and far from the house on Via Della Pergola at the time of the crime, to be aware of Lumumba’s total innocence, and thus of the calumny that she was committing by pointing to him as the perpetrator of the murder."

Isn't Hellmann effectively saying that even if the police themselves were suspicious of Lumumba by virtue of his connection (through the text messages), to Amanda Knox, Ms Knox should have worked out that this suspicion was misplaced given that it arose purely from the police's mistaken belief in Ms Knox's own involvement!?

Additionally, Ms Knox, by virtue of her own knowledge of the "lack of evidence of a connection between Lumumba and Ms Kercher" should have had sufficient "awareness" of Lumumba's "total innocence", suggests Hellmann, despite the fact that they had met - that there was a "connection" contrary to his assertion.

Isn't Hellmann really saying here that Ms Knox did not know that Lumumba was innocent, merely, that she should have known? If so, then he contradicts himself when he states that Ms Knox had "generic criminal intent" as in:

"This Court therefore finds that Amanda Knox had indicated Lumumba as the perpetrator only because, at that moment, it appeared to be the quickest and easiest way to put an end to the situation in which she found herself, her interrogators having insisted on an explanation of the message she sent to him."

"Should have had.... awareness" (of Lumumba's innocence) and knowing him to be innocent, are quite different things.

But there is no evidence that this was the reason why Lumumba was named - that Ms Knox deliberately chose to name him "to put an end to the situation" - no evidence of intent - and no evidence that in enduring "considerable psychological pressure" she was capable of the calm, complex, rational process of thought, which Hellmann insists she must be capable of.

And yet Hellmann also states as follows:

"The obsessive length of the interrogations, carried out during [both] day and night, by more than one person, on a young and foreign girl who at the time did not speak Italian at all well, was unaware of her own rights, did not have the assistance of an attorney (which she should have been entitled to, being at this point suspected of very serious crimes), and was moreover being assisted by an interpreter who — as shown by Ms. Bongiorno — did not limit herself to translating, but induced her to force herself to remember, explaining that she [Amanda] was confused in her memories, perhaps because of the trauma she experienced, makes it wholly understandable that she was in a situation of considerable psychological pressure (to call it stress seems an understatement [appare riduttivo]), enough to raise doubts about the actual spontaneity of her statements; a spontaneity which would have strangely [singolarmente] arisen in the middle of the night, after hours and hours of interrogation: the so-called spontaneous statements were made at 1:45 am (middle of the night) on 11-6-2007 (the day after the interrogation had started) and again at 5:45 am afterward, and the note was written a few hours later."

The interrogation is illegal, yet the calunnia conviction sustainable? The ECHR will, as we have discussed, have much to say about the abuse of Ms Knox's procedural rights, partially described by Hellmann.

But you are right. Ms Knox, in any case, objectively, cannot know that Lumumba is innocent (Helllmann accepts that Ms Knox was not present during the murder and thus not a witness to the absense of Lumumba).

 

[Machiavelli]

They would have a better time with the ECHR.

It is laughable that the Perugian folk were allowed to adjudicate the very claims of misconduct against them. Do you know what a conflict of interest is, Machiavelli?

Who talked about "Perugian folks"? If the theory is Stefanoni committed crimes in her laboratory, the competent authority should be a magistrate in Rome.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli,

Number wrote, "What should be requested from the lab?
1. A disk containing raw data, including but not limited to the sample files, project files, injection lists, sample sheets and injection logs.
Start by reviewing the injection lists, sample sheets and injection logs, noting the time and date stamps on all runs to check the order in which samples were run and to make sure that controls were not substituted with those from a different day."

If Stefanoni released this information, it could verify or falsify what several of us have been saying, that some egrams were never produced, etc. They we would know who is right. Let's see the injection records.

But you have no authority to "verify" and to decide alone in your house basement. (Stafanoni does not have an authority to release them neither btw). If there is something to verify, or reason to do that, then a magistrate should investigate and a judge shall verify.
As long as you don't submit a denouncement (esposto) indicating there is something the authority shall verify, nobody will see if your testimony has merits.

 

[anglolawyer]

But you have no authority to "verify" and to decide alone in your house basement. (Stafanoni does not have an authority to release them neither btw). If there is something to verify, or reason to do that, then a magistrate should investigate and a judge shall verify.
As long as you don't submit a denouncement (esposto) indicating there is something the authority shall verify, nobody will see if your testimony has merits.

Dear Mach

I hereby appoint you my agent in Italy for the purpose of denouncing Stefanoni to a magistrate. In return for the appointment, you will hold me indemnified against all costs, losses, damages or other detriment that may result (including any prison time which you will serve as my proxy).

Thank you for for co-operation.

Sincerely

Anglo

 

[carbonjam72]

Italy's systemic corruption of the right to fair process

Hellmann's reasoning is curious:

"the circumstances under which Lumumba’s name emerged in the course of the police interrogation (a message directed to him taken from the cellular phone of Amanda Knox), and the lack of evidence of a connection between Lumumba and Meredith Kercher [should have] allowed Amanda Knox, even if actually innocent herself and far from the house on Via Della Pergola at the time of the crime, to be aware of Lumumba’s total innocence, and thus of the calumny that she was committing by pointing to him as the perpetrator of the murder."

Isn't Hellmann effectively saying that even if the police themselves were suspicious of Lumumba by virtue of his connection (through the text messages), to Amanda Knox, Ms Knox should have worked out that this suspicion was misplaced given that it arose purely from the police's mistaken belief in Ms Knox's own involvement!?

Additionally, Ms Knox, by virtue of her own knowledge of the "lack of evidence of a connection between Lumumba and Ms Kercher" should have had sufficient "awareness" of Lumumba's "total innocence", suggests Hellmann, despite the fact that they had met - that there was a "connection" contrary to his assertion.

Isn't Hellmann really saying here that Ms Knox did not know that Lumumba was innocent, merely, that she should have known? If so, then he contradicts himself when he states that Ms Knox had "generic criminal intent" as in:

"This Court therefore finds that Amanda Knox had indicated Lumumba as the perpetrator only because, at that moment, it appeared to be the quickest and easiest way to put an end to the situation in which she found herself, her interrogators having insisted on an explanation of the message she sent to him."

"Should have had.... awareness" (of Lumumba's innocence) and knowing him to be innocent, are quite different things.

But there is no evidence that this was the reason why Lumumba was named - that Ms Knox deliberately chose to name him "to put an end to the situation" - no evidence of intent - and no evidence that in enduring "considerable psychological pressure" she was capable of the calm, complex, rational process of thought, which Hellmann insists she must be capable of.

And yet Hellmann also states as follows:

"The obsessive length of the interrogations, carried out during [both] day and night, by more than one person, on a young and foreign girl who at the time did not speak Italian at all well, was unaware of her own rights, did not have the assistance of an attorney (which she should have been entitled to, being at this point suspected of very serious crimes), and was moreover being assisted by an interpreter who — as shown by Ms. Bongiorno — did not limit herself to translating, but induced her to force herself to remember, explaining that she [Amanda] was confused in her memories, perhaps because of the trauma she experienced, makes it wholly understandable that she was in a situation of considerable psychological pressure (to call it stress seems an understatement [appare riduttivo]), enough to raise doubts about the actual spontaneity of her statements; a spontaneity which would have strangely [singolarmente] arisen in the middle of the night, after hours and hours of interrogation: the so-called spontaneous statements were made at 1:45 am (middle of the night) on 11-6-2007 (the day after the interrogation had started) and again at 5:45 am afterward, and the note was written a few hours later."

The interrogation is illegal, yet the calunnia conviction sustainable? The ECHR will, as we have discussed, have much to say about the abuse of Ms Knox's procedural rights, partially described by Hellmann.

But you are right. Ms Knox, in any case, objectively, cannot know that Lumumba is innocent (Helllmann accepts that Ms Knox was not present during the murder and thus not a witness to the absense of Lumumba).

It's a bit of dancing here by judge Hellman, but I think its a situation where the logic given is just the window dressing for a conclusion that must be reached for reasons that have nothing to do with the evidence in the courtroom or traditional notions of justice. Hellman himself said his only other option was to call the police criminals, which after Nencini's re-conviction, he said he wished he had done.

I think this calunnia conviction reasoning is just Hellman putting 'lipstick on a pig', because he needs to explain why Amanda spent 4 years in prison for a crime she didn't commit, based on police brutality, fraudulent evidence, lying bogus witnesses, and of course, 'the Mignini'.

I think its the same way with the convicting courts on the murder and other charges. None of these opinions are actual, legitimate or honest. The motivation reports are just the excuses used to reach the pre-determined outcome. That's why these conversations always strike me as, sad to say, naive. It's not a straight process, it never has been. Not even with Hellman, although he did the best he could under the circumstances.

I think it just has to be faced that in Italy, there is something of a coercive factor favoring prosecutors and police, with which even the best judges have to reconcile. Justice is not free to be just. Italy has deeper problems than just this one false conviction.

The ECHR will make short work of this tragic farce, whenever they get around to it. This is an area where EC budgets should be increased to cut down waiting times to something reasonable - like no more than a year. But really, is even 3 or 4 months required to get records and digest findings under most scenarios? There's seems little reason for court proceedings to drag out as they do, apart from the fact that the dramatis personnae (lawyers) are customarily paid by the hour, so from their perspective, literally 'more is more'.

 

[Numbers]

Hellmann's reasoning is curious:

"the circumstances under which Lumumba’s name emerged in the course of the police interrogation (a message directed to him taken from the cellular phone of Amanda Knox), and the lack of evidence of a connection between Lumumba and Meredith Kercher [should have] allowed Amanda Knox, even if actually innocent herself and far from the house on Via Della Pergola at the time of the crime, to be aware of Lumumba’s total innocence, and thus of the calumny that she was committing by pointing to him as the perpetrator of the murder."

Isn't Hellmann effectively saying that even if the police themselves were suspicious of Lumumba by virtue of his connection (through the text messages), to Amanda Knox, Ms Knox should have worked out that this suspicion was misplaced given that it arose purely from the police's mistaken belief in Ms Knox's own involvement!?

Additionally, Ms Knox, by virtue of her own knowledge of the "lack of evidence of a connection between Lumumba and Ms Kercher" should have had sufficient "awareness" of Lumumba's "total innocence", suggests Hellmann, despite the fact that they had met - that there was a "connection" contrary to his assertion.

Isn't Hellmann really saying here that Ms Knox did not know that Lumumba was innocent, merely, that she should have known? If so, then he contradicts himself when he states that Ms Knox had "generic criminal intent" as in:

"This Court therefore finds that Amanda Knox had indicated Lumumba as the perpetrator only because, at that moment, it appeared to be the quickest and easiest way to put an end to the situation in which she found herself, her interrogators having insisted on an explanation of the message she sent to him."

"Should have had.... awareness" (of Lumumba's innocence) and knowing him to be innocent, are quite different things.

But there is no evidence that this was the reason why Lumumba was named - that Ms Knox deliberately chose to name him "to put an end to the situation" - no evidence of intent - and no evidence that in enduring "considerable psychological pressure" she was capable of the calm, complex, rational process of thought, which Hellmann insists she must be capable of.

And yet Hellmann also states as follows:

"The obsessive length of the interrogations, carried out during [both] day and night, by more than one person, on a young and foreign girl who at the time did not speak Italian at all well, was unaware of her own rights, did not have the assistance of an attorney (which she should have been entitled to, being at this point suspected of very serious crimes), and was moreover being assisted by an interpreter who — as shown by Ms. Bongiorno — did not limit herself to translating, but induced her to force herself to remember, explaining that she [Amanda] was confused in her memories, perhaps because of the trauma she experienced, makes it wholly understandable that she was in a situation of considerable psychological pressure (to call it stress seems an understatement [appare riduttivo]), enough to raise doubts about the actual spontaneity of her statements; a spontaneity which would have strangely [singolarmente] arisen in the middle of the night, after hours and hours of interrogation: the so-called spontaneous statements were made at 1:45 am (middle of the night) on 11-6-2007 (the day after the interrogation had started) and again at 5:45 am afterward, and the note was written a few hours later."

The interrogation is illegal, yet the calunnia conviction sustainable? The ECHR will, as we have discussed, have much to say about the abuse of Ms Knox's procedural rights, partially described by Hellmann.

But you are right. Ms Knox, in any case, objectively, cannot know that Lumumba is innocent (Helllmann accepts that Ms Knox was not present during the murder and thus not a witness to the absense of Lumumba).

The Hellmann court reasoning that reached a guilty verdict for Amanda Knox for simple calunnia did not make sense; even the CSC noted that when they finalized the conviction. Of course, their approach, presumption of guilt, would have her guilty of aggravated calunnia.

The contradictions between the facts of the interrogation - such as the absence of counsel for Ms. Knox - which the Hellmann court summarizes fairly accurately in one part of the motivation and the twists of logic used by the Hellmann court to justify a finding of guilt, will be one reason ECHR will find that the trial and conviction for calunnia were a violation by Italy of Convention Article 6.

 

[Numbers]

It's a bit of dancing here by judge Hellman, but I think its a situation where the logic given is just the window dressing for a conclusion that must be reached for reasons that have nothing to do with the evidence in the courtroom or traditional notions of justice. Hellman himself said his only other option was to call the police criminals, which after Nencini's re-conviction, he said he wished he had done.

I think this calunnia conviction reasoning is just Hellman putting 'lipstick on a pig', because he needs to explain why Amanda spent 4 years in prison for a crime she didn't commit, based on police brutality, fraudulent evidence, lying bogus witnesses, and of course, 'the Mignini'.

I think its the same way with the convicting courts on the murder and other charges. None of these opinions are actual, legitimate or honest. The motivation reports are just the excuses used to reach the pre-determined outcome. That's why these conversations always strike me as, sad to say, naive. It's not a straight process, it never has been. Not even with Hellman, although he did the best he could under the circumstances.

I think it just has to be faced that in Italy, there is something of a coercive factor favoring prosecutors and police, with which even the best judges have to reconcile. Justice is not free to be just. Italy has deeper problems than just this one false conviction.

The ECHR will make short work of this tragic farce, whenever they get around to it. This is an area where EC budgets should be increased to cut down waiting times to something reasonable - like no more than a year. But really, is even 3 or 4 months required to get records and digest findings under most scenarios? There's seems little reason for court proceedings to drag out as they do, apart from the fact that the dramatis personnae (lawyers) are customarily paid by the hour, so from their perspective, literally 'more is more'.

I recall reading that the ECHR President suggested in a speech last year that the ECHR budget be doubled, but he thought that this would be politically unpopular for the Council of Europe Parliament.

So what is happening is that the CoE and ECHR, in part, are imposing stricter conditions on applicants. For example, there is a Protocol (amendment) to the Convention that will reduce the window of opportunity to apply to the ECHR from 6 months to 4 months after finalization of a case in the domestic court system, for example. Also, applicants must now show that they suffered significant disadvantage, which in monetary terms is defined as a loss (such as a fine) of 500 Euros, although there will be some flexibility on this for cases where there is a compelling human rights interest (as decided by the ECHR).

 

[Wannaknow]

Trace F in the kitchen

Hello.

I have got a question.

Trace H in the kitchen, a shoeprint belonging to Guede, ist located next to the sofa. I read on several occasions that all the shoeprints belonging to Guede heading to the front door are left ones.

Now, why is it that this print H seems to be a right one ? Compare, for example, with print F in the kitchen or with prints 2 and 3 in the floor.

Greetings

 

[anglolawyer]

Hello.

I have got a question.

Trace H in the kitchen, a shoeprint belonging to Guede, ist located next to the sofa. I read on several occasions that all the shoeprints belonging to Guede heading to to front door are left ones.

Now, why is it that this print H seems to be a right one ? Compare, for example, with print F in the kitchen or with prints 2 and 3 in the floor.

Greetings

You must have eyes like a hawk. I defer to the eagle-eyed Dan O. and others.

 

[carbonjam72]

I recall reading that the ECHR President suggested in a speech last year that the ECHR budget be doubled, but he thought that this would be politically unpopular for the Council of Europe Parliament.
So what is happening is that the CoE and ECHR, in part, are imposing stricter conditions on applicants. For example, there is a Protocol (amendment) to the Convention that will reduce the window of opportunity to apply to the ECHR from 6 months to 4 months after finalization of a case in the domestic court system, for example. Also, applicants must now show that they suffered significant disadvantage, which in monetary terms is defined as a loss (such as a fine) of 500 Euros, although there will be some flexibility on this for cases where there is a compelling human rights interest (as decided by the ECHR).

This doesn't bode well for the wrongfully convicted. Sounds like they'd 'rather not know' when they've goofed.

I'm starting to lean towards the opinion that all people should have an option to be tried by international courts, as a human right, to avoid the cozy corruption between police, prosecutors, and judges, so often on display. At the very least, have access to rotating judges with no connections to the locality, to curry favor or have fear.

And prosecutors should be absolutely prohibited from self-identifying or speaking directly with the press or media on a case they are involved in. Leave it to spokespeople to communicate to the public. That kind of self serving show boating is half the problem, imo.

 

[carbonjam72]

You must have eyes like a hawk. I defer to the eagle-eyed Dan O. and others.

Yes, these bloody sneaker tracks are tough to see. Always appreciate DanO's photos and observations on this.

The bloody prints are actual residue of the crime, one of the few indications, if indeed there are any others, that shows us the physical actions of the guilty person(s). (Knife outline on bed sheet is another, and other traces of Meredith's blood with Rudy's prints & DNA).

 

[Diocletus]

If there is something to verify, or reason to do that, then a magistrate should investigate and a judge shall verify.

Well, yes. But unfortunately, due to incompetence, conceit, deceit, ignorance, stupidity, xenophobia and little brother syndrome, that's not what happened.

 

[Diocletus]

Hellmann's reasoning is curious:

"the circumstances under which Lumumba’s name emerged in the course of the police interrogation (a message directed to him taken from the cellular phone of Amanda Knox), and the lack of evidence of a connection between Lumumba and Meredith Kercher [should have] allowed Amanda Knox, even if actually innocent herself and far from the house on Via Della Pergola at the time of the crime, to be aware of Lumumba’s total innocence, and thus of the calumny that she was committing by pointing to him as the perpetrator of the murder."

The only people who "knew" that Lumumba was guilty were the cops. Hellmann seems to think that Knox must have worked out on her own that the cops were lying to her about Lumumba being guilty, otherwise, she not only would not have known of his innocence, but also, she could have reasonably relied upon the police in believing that Lumumba was guilty. In either case, she's not guilty of callunnia.

Hellmann should have just said what everyone knows is the case, which is that the cops lied to her and then hit her, and then he would have been done with the whole issue.

 

[Diocletus]

It's absolutely false that this would bring a risk of a defamation charge. Halkudes and Zupancic have already committed a defamation; you don't commit defamation by bringing testimonies, you commit defamation by making false claims in public press conferences and articles. What you tell to the police or to a magistrate is confidential and can't be charged with defamation.

Yeah, there's just one problem: you seem not to know what the highlighted word means. Let me explain by example:

False: Stefanoni's testimony about 36b being "several hundred picograms", 165 having "abundant" DNA, and the footprints being blood.

True: Stefanoni's lab was contaminated, her machinery was defective, and she didn't produce all of the amplifications.

 

[LondonJohn]

Hello.

I have got a question.

Trace H in the kitchen, a shoeprint belonging to Guede, ist located next to the sofa. I read on several occasions that all the shoeprints belonging to Guede heading to the front door are left ones.

Now, why is it that this print H seems to be a right one ? Compare, for example, with print F in the kitchen or with prints 2 and 3 in the floor.

Greetings

No, I think all of those Guede show prints in the hallway and kitchen area are from the right shoe.

But at least one of them (I, I think) is facing back towards Kercher's room, and two of them (J and Y, I think) are side by side. This indicates unequivocally that - contrary to certain pro-guilt commentators' misguided and prejudiced beliefs - Guede stopped in his tracks well before reaching the front door, and almost certainly turned and made his way back towards the bedroom.

 

[Dan O.]

Hello.

I have got a question.

Trace H in the kitchen, a shoeprint belonging to Guede, ist located next to the sofa. I read on several occasions that all the shoeprints belonging to Guede heading to the front door are left ones.

Now, why is it that this print H seems to be a right one ? Compare, for example, with print F in the kitchen or with prints 2 and 3 in the floor.

Greetings

The simple answer is that the shoe that produced the"H" tract was facing away from the door. It is my belief that Rudy was turned away by the discovery of the locked door and has stopped here to contemplate his next move.

I analyzed these tracts using a template of the shoe overlaid with the clear tract in the bedroom where the orientation of the shoe was most apparent. The parts of tract H still line up with the diminishing blood on the shoe but there are multiple imprints in this spot making it look more extensive.

Though there must be a next step after H, this would only be visible in a closeup photo or with luminal enhancement. I don't have the raw Spheron files that might show this next step and the idiot doing the Luminol survey only recorded where there were large bare footprint sized tracts.

 

[Numbers]

The only people who "knew" that Lumumba was guilty were the cops. Hellmann seems to think that Knox must have worked out on her own that the cops were lying to her about Lumumba being guilty, otherwise, she not only would not have known of his innocence, but also, she could have reasonably relied upon the police in believing that Lumumba was guilty. In either case, she's not guilty of callunnia.

Hellmann should have just said what everyone knows is the case, which is that the cops lied to her and then hit her, and then he would have been done with the whole issue.

Hellmann probably believed she should have known that Lumumba wasn't guilty because the cops hit her.

 

[Desert Fox]

Hellmann probably believed she should have known that Lumumba wasn't guilty because the cops hit her.

I think it is the functional equivalent of giving the West Memphis Three "Time Served"