Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Diocletus]

Don't look here is you want to maintain a belief in large circles of blood on the steps leading downstairs.

View attachment 32616

Or explain how such a circle forms draping over the edge of the wall.

Same way any drip forms.

 

[Diocletus]

He said he changed in to the Pele Pele (?) ones immediately after the murder. Why does he include this detail even down to the brand of pants? I know you can't answer that but it's a pretty unusual specific detail to add unless he took them from downstairs and needed to account for them.

I think he went back to his apartment and changed from Silenzi's Loose Fit pants into Guede's own Pele Pele pants. Possibly, however, he took a different pair of pants from the downstairs apartment, threw them away, and then mentioned the Pele Pele pants as a way of denying that he took anything from downstairs.

I think, though, that the Chagall ticket came from the downstairs apartment, and belonged to one of the boys, likely Silenzi. It had to have been in a pants pocket.

 

[Diocletus]

What is your theory of why this was covered up? For that mater, if Rudy had a key to downstairs, why does he instead fabricate a story of covering his pants with the sweatshirt?

I've already answered this.

If there was a real break-in downstairs, and Guede's and Kercher's blood was found all around, with evidence of a clean up and missing clothes, it would have severely undercut the case against Knox and Sollecito. The break-in upstairs would have looked real, and the upstairs "clean up" would have been undercut. There would be no proof of Knox/Sollecito going downstairs, and it wouldn't have made sense anyway.

Rudy may well have covered his pants on the way from the front door to downstairs, but at that point he realizes that he needs new pants to get home, particularly if he is walking through downtown.

 

[Numbers]

What is your theory of why this was covered up? For that mater, if Rudy had a key to downstairs, why does he instead fabricate a story of covering his pants with the sweatshirt?

I've already answered this.

If there was a real break-in downstairs, and Guede's and Kercher's blood was found all around, with evidence of a clean up and missing clothes, it would have severely undercut the case against Knox and Sollecito. The break-in upstairs would have looked real, and the upstairs "clean up" would have been undercut. There would be no proof of Knox/Sollecito going downstairs, and it wouldn't have made sense anyway.

Rudy may well have covered his pants on the way from the front door to downstairs, but at that point he realizes that he needs new pants to get home, particularly if he is walking through downtown.

The cover-up of the downstairs evidence is consistent with the failure to test (or to acknowledge testing and report results) of the putative semen stain on the pillow found under Meredith, Dtefanoni's perjuries about contamination and test methods and quantities, and the denial of defense requests for the EDFs. Any evidence of potentially exculpatory value has been denied.

 

[Bill Williams]

So you and Bill are on the same page on the Nov 5th “throwing under the bus/ blaming her for his earlier lies” issue. Well thats something.

Unfortunately as I pointed out here Raffy is not.

Now LJ – if you don’t stop with this kind of stuff I’ll tell Rolfe

platonov.... you pointed out nothing. In the endless series of, "I've already covered that," the following is what you pointed out to LondonJohn, which proved nothing except that you made assertions and have unverified opinions....

I certainly didn’t decipher the physical presence of RS’s legal team in the most recent TV appearance [The press conference was months ago] – RS in a one to one on Italian TV.
You must have missed it. Which is surprising given all the comment it provoked on this thread – OK I’m kidding, it gained very little traction in cartwheel world.

The upshot of this interview was that RS most definitely can’t account for AK’s presence on the night of the murder – he was extremely non committal on the whole business. You should check it out, the TV interview that is. Apparently RS’s imagination w.r.t his ‘interrogation’ on the 5th is not as fertile as yours. He restricts himself to ‘he wasn’t sure which night’ the police were asking him about. One wonders if he has groupies in Italy who deconstruct what he really meant.

Obviously he doesn’t read this thread and thus doesn’t know what he is talking about​

You could help us "check this out", but you do not which is consistent with making it as an assertion, rather than something you even wish to demonstrate. This could have been demonstrated by even summarizing what, in your view, Raffaele said. But you didn't do even that. In short, you have no clue what the separation strategy is, but you have an agenda to create as much confusion as possible - wehn Raffaele's position is crystal clear:

Suummarized as, "If you're going to use that item of evidence against Amanda, then that item of evidence tends to exonerate me! Are you sure, then, you wish to use it against Amanda?" Truly, platonov, it is that simple.

I am with Kauffer on this: why do you continue?

Above, you even admit that Raffaele is, to this day, uncertain as to which night the police were interviewing him about.

This has nothing to do with Amanda. He knows she went out on Oct 31, he knows she did not on Nov 1/2. Even you admit he is confused, except that you omit the source of the confusion - the way the police raised the issue at interrogation, wishing to take the confusion into Amanda's room to lean on her there.

In an odd way, you are simply proving the position that LJ and I take on this. It's mainly because of the endless cycle of, "I've already covered that's", which is your main response, with occasional link to the other stuff you said, which, again, is simple assertion of a position.

 

[Desert Fox]

Hard Drives

I am curious if there are any cases involving computer forensics where law enforcement manage to destroy hard drives at all? I would like to know if there has ever been anything remotely similar to what happened in this case?

 

[Dougm]

No one innocent would ever get any facts mixed up, right??

So you and Bill are on the same page on the Nov 5th “throwing under the bus/ blaming her for his earlier lies” issue. Well thats something.

Unfortunately as I pointed out here Raffy is not.

Why on earth are you still going on about this? We have already uncovered from you that it has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the conclusions you have come to about the case.

Actually, it has total bearing on the conclusions platonov has come to about the case.

It is quite evident from his comments on this issue, that he noted the inconsistency in Raff and Amanda's statements (and probably the kissing, underwear purchase, etc.) and decided they are guilty. Case closed. Can't get past the night of the 5th/6th, because that tells us all we need to know.

It also explains why it is so important to him when we defend Amanda (and Raff) against above stated behavior judgments, because he thinks that is what the case is about (see also "Britney" references, etc.).

 

[platonov]

platonov.... you pointed out nothing. In the endless series of, "I've already covered that," the following is what you pointed out to LondonJohn, which proved nothing except that you made assertions and have unverified opinions....

​

You could help us "check this out", but you do not which is consistent with making it as an assertion, rather than something you even wish to demonstrate. This could have been demonstrated by even summarizing what, in your view, Raffaele said. But you didn't do even that. In short, you have no clue what the separation strategy is, but you have an agenda to create as much confusion as possible - wehn Raffaele's position is crystal clear:

Suummarized as, "If you're going to use that item of evidence against Amanda, then that item of evidence tends to exonerate me! Are you sure, then, you wish to use it against Amanda?" Truly, platonov, it is that simple.

I am with Kauffer on this: why do you continue?

Above, you even admit that Raffaele is, to this day, uncertain as to which night the police were interviewing him about.

This has nothing to do with Amanda. He knows she went out on Oct 31, he knows she did not on Nov 1/2. Even you admit he is confused, except that you omit the source of the confusion - the way the police raised the issue at interrogation, wishing to take the confusion into Amanda's room to lean on her there.

In an odd way, you are simply proving the position that LJ and I take on this. It's mainly because of the endless cycle of, "I've already covered that's", which is your main response, with occasional link to the other stuff you said, which, again, is simple assertion of a position.

Finally Bill we are getting somewhere.

The bolded section is what RS claimed on Italian TV as the reason he threw AK under the bus.
Obviously it’s complete nonsense – we have his statement and have known the contents for years.
But here’s the thing, it’s completely different nonsense to the fantastical confabulations that LJ recently came up with – which is part of what we were discussing.

So thank you for that.
If we work together Bill the possibilities are boundless.
Let’s make it happen

A minor point – how do you suggest that I help you ‘check it out’. You either watch the video or you don’t. Working as a team is all very well but I can’t watch the video for you.

 

[platonov]

Slow down.

Why on earth are you still going on about this? We have already uncovered from you that it has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the conclusions you have come to about the case.

Hold on.
Just 1 day ago you were unaware of platonov’s position w.r.t the guilt or innocence of AK and RS.
Which is remarkable by any metric.

Now you can read my mind.
That’s a steep learning curve

 

[Desert Fox]

Hold on.
Just 1 day ago you were unaware of platonov’s position w.r.t the guilt or innocence of AK and RS.
Which is remarkable by any metric.

Now you can read my mind.
That’s a steep learning curve

You write about "Convenient Memory Lapses" but I am curious what you think about "Convenient Destruction of Three Hard Drives"?

 

[Diocletus]

I am convinced that Italy must know it is going to lose and therefore it has an opportunity to choose the least impactful defeat - which is to settle the case and stop the court making a ruling.

Of course, if Cassation confirms on the 25th, the chances would be high that following new applications by both Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito, the ECHR would decide to consider all of the applications generated from the Kercher murder, together.

The fact that the ECHR application remains pending after a year and a half has to be very concerning for Cassation. The "safest" option for them is to send this thing back to a lower court so they can wait it out to see what the ECHR does. If the ECHR rejects the callunnia application, then they can go ahead and convict. If the ECHR accepts the callunnia conviction, then they still have the murder case in Italy and can handle it internally without looking like they got slapped down by the ECHR.

On the other hand, if they confirm the conviction this month, then everything is cast in stone and they have just set themselves up for monumental embarrassment. I can't imagine that they're that reckless, but then again, look at Chieffi's ridiculous piece of jurisprudence.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

convenient truths

You write about "Convenient Memory Lapses" but I am curious what you think about "Convenient Destruction of Three Hard Drives"?

Or convenient destruction of a bra clasp. Or convenient overwriting of CCTV footage...

 

[Bill Williams]

Finally Bill we are getting somewhere.

The bolded section is what RS claimed on Italian TV as the reason he threw AK under the bus. Obviously it’s complete nonsense – we have his statement and have known the contents for years.But here’s the thing, it’s completely different nonsense to the fantastical confabulations that LJ recently came up with – which is part of what we were discussing.

So thank you for that.
If we work together Bill the possibilities are boundless.
Let’s make it happen

A minor point – how do you suggest that I help you ‘check it out’. You either watch the video or you don’t. Working as a team is all very well but I can’t watch the video for you.

You are nothing if not amazing, and someone committed to maximizing confusion.

I can only repeat. You obviously need to read Raffaele's book - on the way the document he signed was composed. It was not composed by him, and he was not allowed to change anything in it - except for one item which was relatively minor, which the PLE offered to him. He is clear that he signed a document under duress, which did not reflect either the events of the night of Nov 1/2, or even the confusions he was presented with on the late night of Nov 5.

Please read his account: it is filled with lines like, "I told them that one day had blended into another in my mind. Perhaps we'd gone shopping the day before. What did I know?"

His effort to straighten-out the purposeful confusion he was being pressured with met a potential solution, one which was denied him: "I noticed a calendar in the room and asked if I could consult it." Any true investigation, one seeking the truth, would have allowed him to do exactly this. They would have taken time and let him have space to work out the minutiae they were demanding of him. (No one was going anywhere, so what was the rush? Oh - Edda was coming in from the States, and Amanda would soon be lawyered up. So the pressure had to be put on Raffaele - maximum confusion.)

They were not interested in his clarifications - indeed, as per the whole point of interrogations, what they were interested in was confession - in Raffaele's case, they were wanting him solely to confirm their, then, working theory, where (at the very least) Amanda Knox was a suspect in a crime. (A "working theory" which bore no relation to the subsequent series of theories presented by subsequent prosecutors and judges, who all had their own theories!)

He asked to consult a lawyer. He was denied. He asked to call his father. He was denied. In court, the PLE testified that Raffaele had never requested a lawyer. All of this could be cleared up by consulting the mandatory video of his interrogation. Despite 10,000 hours of other electronic eavesdropping recorded by the PLE, the PLE were so interested in the truth, they forgot to videotape this crucial piece.

They then wanted Raffaele to sign a statement they had prepared. Acc. to Raffaele (p 57. Honor Bound) the first part was "a big mash up of the events of October 31 and November 1, most of which, I have to admit, was the result of my own confusion."

An investigator trying to find truth would have helped this guy sort out the confusion BEFORE putting a statement together and asking him to sign it. What's the rush..... oh right, Edda is coming.

Then to what Raffaele writes, which echoes countless hundreds of other wrongfully convicted, who were convicted in part on such statements under duress: "Absurd as it sounds, the statement struck me as accurate enough up to this point. I simply missed the fact that I was - from the investigator's point of view - cutting Amanda loose for the entire evening and depriving her of the only alibi she had."

Even with this, he asked for changes to the statement, because what had been prepared was not accurate. They, again, denied him. Still believing that the police didn't actually do this kind of coercive stuff: "At three thirty, after five hours of relentless interrogation, I signed."

A statement not of his own authorship, which he disagreed with. With no legal representation, someone who could advise him of what he did not at the time know - it would cut Amanda loose. (And if this was a lawyer concerned solely with Raffaele's interests, even against Amanda's, he could have been advised that he was, in effect, getting himself into trouble.)

That's it, platonov.

The, "the fantastical confabulations that LJ recently came up with," is actually pretty well known territory. Denial of rights (eg. to a lawyer), middle of the night interrogation, threats of violence, statements prepared for him, which he argued with - but eventual compliance from an otherwise innocent party is well known territory.

He signed it, missing the fact that in the investigator's minds, it cut Amanda loose.

As for Raffaele, he has been consistent. Once he put together in his own mind that Amanda actually could not physically have been apart from him Nov 1/2, this meant that she was innocent of the crime despite what he was being told, and he knew her to be innocent....

...... yet he's facing the same sanction. If he will not cooperate, they'll charge him. And 46 days later go and retrieve a bra-clasp from a dusty floor because they had nothing else!

Therefore, the separation strategy. If the courts are going to condemn Amanda on some specific item of evidence, they cannot use that item to condemn him - because there are some items like this which actually exonerate him (or at the very least say nothing about him).

Therefore, how can the courts convict him?

He has been remarkably consistent, even since the "statement" which was prepared for him, which he signed. It was only in the investigators' minds, a theory they had gone into his interrogation looking to validate (through confusion), that Amanda was condemned.

His question is as always: what does ANY of this have to do with me?

ETA: the second best thing for either of them following March 25, is to have one of them free. The PLE knew this, Mignini knew this, Nencini knew this, and it is now up to Cassazione to consider this. The ONLY reason to throw everything at Raffaele, is to get at Knox.

 

[Dougm]

The fact that the ECHR application remains pending after a year and a half has to be very concerning for Cassation. The "safest" option for them is to send this thing back to a lower court so they can wait it out to see what the ECHR does. If the ECHR rejects the callunnia application, then they can go ahead and convict. If the ECHR accepts the callunnia conviction, then they still have the murder case in Italy and can handle it internally without looking like they got slapped down by the ECHR.

On the other hand, if they confirm the conviction this month, then everything is cast in stone and they have just set themselves up for monumental embarrassment. I can't imagine that they're that reckless, but then again, look at Chieffi's ridiculous piece of jurisprudence.

The decision making so far has been so irrational, I find it almost impossible to anticipate what they might do. Your POV makes sense, which is probably why it won't happen. But they have certainly surprised before.

 

[Desert Fox]

Or convenient destruction of a bra clasp. Or convenient overwriting of CCTV footage...

That has happen in other cases where I think we can explain as "cock up."

 

[Numbers]

Most Member States' judiciaries are fully cogniscent of their obligations under the Convention, work with their governments and we find no schism, ...

I am convinced that Italy must know it is going to lose and therefore it has an opportunity to choose the least impactful defeat - which is to settle the case and stop the court making a ruling.

Of course, if Cassation confirms on the 25th, the chances would be high that following new applications by both Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito, the ECHR would decide to consider all of the applications generated from the Kercher murder, together.

The fact that the ECHR application remains pending after a year and a half has to be very concerning for Cassation. The "safest" option for them is to send this thing back to a lower court so they can wait it out to see what the ECHR does. If the ECHR rejects the callunnia application, then they can go ahead and convict. If the ECHR accepts the callunnia conviction, then they still have the murder case in Italy and can handle it internally without looking like they got slapped down by the ECHR.

On the other hand, if they confirm the conviction this month, then everything is cast in stone and they have just set themselves up for monumental embarrassment. I can't imagine that they're that reckless, but then again, look at Chieffi's ridiculous piece of jurisprudence.

Both of you have good arguments that would apply to a rational court system.

Can either of you cite evidence of the rational behavior of the Italian courts, Hellmann excepted?

I think there may be some slightly increased probability of a 3rd 2nd-level trial in part because that will give more of the police, prosecutors, and judges who committed official misconduct in this case more time to arrange their retirement plans prior to any ECHR judgment.

 

[LondonJohn]

You are nothing if not amazing, and someone committed to maximizing confusion.

I can only repeat. You obviously need to read Raffaele's book - on the way the document he signed was composed. It was not composed by him, and he was not allowed to change anything in it - except for one item which was relatively minor, which the PLE offered to him. He is clear that he signed a document under duress, which did not reflect either the events of the night of Nov 1/2, or even the confusions he was presented with on the late night of Nov 5.

Please read his account: it is filled with lines like, "I told them that one day had blended into another in my mind. Perhaps we'd gone shopping the day before. What did I know?"

His effort to straighten-out the purposeful confusion he was being pressured with met a potential solution, one which was denied him: "I noticed a calendar in the room and asked if I could consult it." Any true investigation, one seeking the truth, would have allowed him to do exactly this. They would have taken time and let him have space to work out the minutiae they were demanding of him. (No one was going anywhere, so what was the rush? Oh - Edda was coming in from the States, and Amanda would soon be lawyered up. So the pressure had to be put on Raffaele - maximum confusion.)

They were not interested in his clarifications - indeed, as per the whole point of interrogations, what they were interested in was confession - in Raffaele's case, they were wanting him solely to confirm their, then, working theory, where (at the very least) Amanda Knox was a suspect in a crime. (A "working theory" which bore no relation to the subsequent series of theories presented by subsequent prosecutors and judges, who all had their own theories!)

He asked to consult a lawyer. He was denied. He asked to call his father. He was denied. In court, the PLE testified that Raffaele had never requested a lawyer. All of this could be cleared up by consulting the mandatory video of his interrogation. Despite 10,000 hours of other electronic eavesdropping recorded by the PLE, the PLE were so interested in the truth, they forgot to videotape this crucial piece.

They then wanted Raffaele to sign a statement they had prepared. Acc. to Raffaele (p 57. Honor Bound) the first part was "a big mash up of the events of October 31 and November 1, most of which, I have to admit, was the result of my own confusion."

An investigator trying to find truth would have helped this guy sort out the confusion BEFORE putting a statement together and asking him to sign it. What's the rush..... oh right, Edda is coming.

Then to what Raffaele writes, which echoes countless hundreds of other wrongfully convicted, who were convicted in part on such statements under duress: "Absurd as it sounds, the statement struck me as accurate enough up to this point. I simply missed the fact that I was - from the investigator's point of view - cutting Amanda loose for the entire evening and depriving her of the only alibi she had."

Even with this, he asked for changes to the statement, because what had been prepared was not accurate. They, again, denied him. Still believing that the police didn't actually do this kind of coercive stuff: "At three thirty, after five hours of relentless interrogation, I signed."

A statement not of his own authorship, which he disagreed with. With no legal representation, someone who could advise him of what he did not at the time know - it would cut Amanda loose. (And if this was a lawyer concerned solely with Raffaele's interests, even against Amanda's, he could have been advised that he was, in effect, getting himself into trouble.)

That's it, platonov.

The, "the fantastical confabulations that LJ recently came up with," is actually pretty well known territory. Denial of rights (eg. to a lawyer), middle of the night interrogation, threats of violence, statements prepared for him, which he argued with - but eventual compliance from an otherwise innocent party is well known territory.

He signed it, missing the fact that in the investigator's minds, it cut Amanda loose.

As for Raffaele, he has been consistent. Once he put together in his own mind that Amanda actually could not physically have been apart from him Nov 1/2, this meant that she was innocent of the crime despite what he was being told, and he knew her to be innocent....

...... yet he's facing the same sanction. If he will not cooperate, they'll charge him. And 46 days later go and retrieve a bra-clasp from a dusty floor because they had nothing else!

Therefore, the separation strategy. If the courts are going to condemn Amanda on some specific item of evidence, they cannot use that item to condemn him - because there are some items like this which actually exonerate him (or at the very least say nothing about him).

Therefore, how can the courts convict him?

He has been remarkably consistent, even since the "statement" which was prepared for him, which he signed. It was only in the investigators' minds, a theory they had gone into his interrogation looking to validate (through confusion), that Amanda was condemned.

His question is as always: what does ANY of this have to do with me?

ETA: the second best thing for either of them following March 25, is to have one of them free. The PLE knew this, Mignini knew this, Nencini knew this, and it is now up to Cassazione to consider this. The ONLY reason to throw everything at Raffaele, is to get at Knox.

I agree with all of this. I'd only add that in my opinion a highly significant additional factor underpinning Sollecito's statement of 5/6 November - which turned out to be provably false in many respects - was the cognitive dissonance that would have been affecting Sollecito if his memory of Knox spending the whole evening/night of the murder with him in his apartment was being totally contradicted by the police, who were telling him they had incontrovertible proof that Knox had been present at the murder.

And I'd also add that there are none so blind as those who will not see. Or, to put it another way, it's pointless trying to continue arguing the presence of the fossil record with a die-hard creationist. I recommend giving up even trying

 

[Bill Williams]

I agree with all of this. I'd only add that in my opinion a highly significant additional factor underpinning Sollecito's statement of 5/6 November - which turned out to be provably false in many respects - was the cognitive dissonance that would have been affecting Sollecito if his memory of Knox spending the whole evening/night of the murder with him in his apartment was being totally contradicted by the police, who were telling him they had incontrovertible proof that Knox had been present at the murder.

And I'd also add that there are none so blind as those who will not see. Or, to put it another way, it's pointless trying to continue arguing the presence of the fossil record with a die-hard creationist. I recommend giving up even trying

What is compelling about Raffaele's account is that it only slowly dawned on him that their questioning was because somehow Amanda was being implicated in the murder. Raffaele is clear: "I simply missed the fact that I was - from the investigator's point of view - cutting Amanda loose for the entire evening and depriving her of the only alibi she had."

I am sure guilters will pooh-pooh Raffaele's narrative of how his interrogation transpired; and will disagree with how he puts it together.

What they will not do is offer their own narrative.

I am still struck by John Follian's account of both interrogations, in his book, "A Death in Italy." He offers the most bare bones of "narratives" if you can even call it that. Here's a journalists with unprecedented access to the very thoughts of the PLE....... who all of a sudden goes minimalist on the interrogations.

(Aside: Follain recounts Mignini's private thoughts when Mignini saw Amanda making immediate rapport with her own lawyers, who she'd met minutes before her appearance before Matteini. Mignini felt melancholy, acc. to Follain, thinking that, "now she'll never cooperate with me again.")

My conspiratorial thinking about Follain is that he perhaps even had the interrogation account related to him by people like Napoleoni. But even Follain knew it was fiction.....

..... so better go with the narrative which reads like this in A Death in Italy - they plied Amanda with so many biscuits, chamomile tea and kindness that she eventually cracked and confessed!

 

[Numbers]

....
My conspiratorial thinking about Follain is that he perhaps even had the interrogation account related to him by people like Napoleoni. But even Follain knew it was fiction.....

..... so better go with the narrative which reads like this in A Death in Italy - they plied Amanda with so many biscuits, chamomile tea and kindness that she eventually cracked and confessed!

What many don't understand, especially guilters, is that if the biscuits (cookies?), chamomile tea, and kindness given to Amanda led her to make a false statement, and she had no lawyer present to advise her during the interrogation, and then she was convicted on the basis of the false statement, ECHR would still consider that a violation of Convention Article 6 (right to a fair trial). The fake biscuits and tea story rather than the real threats and slapping story does let the police off the hook regarding violation of Italian CPP 377-bis, which provides for a sentence of 2 to 6 years in prison for someone who, by threats or violence, induces another person to make a false statement to a judicial authority. And of course, without a video or even an audio recording of the interrogation extant, the police feel confident that they will aviod accountability.

 

[Bill Williams]

My conspiratorial thinking about Follain is that he perhaps even had the interrogation account related to him by people like Napoleoni. But even Follain knew it was fiction.....

..... so better go with the narrative which reads like this in A Death in Italy - they plied Amanda with so many biscuits, chamomile tea and kindness that she eventually cracked and confessed!

What many don't understand, especially guilters, is that if the biscuits (cookies?), chamomile tea, and kindness given to Amanda led her to make a false statement, and she had no lawyer present to advise her during the interrogation, and then she was convicted on the basis of the false statement, ECHR would still consider that a violation of Convention Article 6 (right to a fair trial). The fake biscuits and tea story rather than the real threats and slapping story does let the police off the hook regarding violation of Italian CPP 377-bis, which provides for a sentence of 2 to 6 years in prison for someone who, by threats or violence, induces another person to make a false statement to a judicial authority. And of course, without a video or even an audio recording of the interrogation extant, the police feel confident that they will aviod accountability.

You probably meant: does not let.

If anyone wonders if my conspiratorializing about John Follain is without basis, consider his own latest, as outlined by Bruce Fischer on Ground Report:

http://groundreport.com/journalistic-integrity-questioned-once-again-in-the-amanda-knox-case/

Like Andrea Vogt, and like at least two Italian judges of our acquaintence (Massei and Nencini), John Follain is even now just making stuff up.

He's forging a secretly recorded discussion between Curt Knox and his daughter, Amanda, when Amanda was in prison.

It's not bad enough to have this kind of invasion of privacy - secret tapings, when the PLE could not tape key interrogations!!!!!.......

But John Follain, forges the transcript to make it sound more sinister. He invents dialogue. Why do you suppose he does that!?

Read Fischer's piece. This thing for the last 7+ years has been like this. If you can't find anything incriminating to say about Knox and/or Sollecito - hell, just make it up. Repeat it enough times and it becomes fact!