Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

That has been discussed here before. From the way Giobbi and others referred to it, I believe the room where they waited (coordinated) the interrogations is located near the interrogation rooms where Knox and Soloecito were being interrogated separately. (Giobbi said he could hear Knox's screams.) The room may have been the office (or near the office) from where interrogation room activity is overseen and from where the on/off switches and modern recording machines (computers) are located.

The police headquarters is a very modern police building with cameras and concealed microphones built-in interrogation rooms and hallway waiting areas. Such devices would be controlled from a control room.

A year ago, while googling various information, I came across information on an Italian firm that cited their role in installing the recording systems in Perugia police headquarters.

Apparently, then, there is evidence that the interrogations could have been readily recorded with the installed audiovisual setup (not that any reasonable person would doubt that an ad hoc system could have been used). This may be significant to the ECHR case; the failure to produce an audio or audiovisual recording of the interrogations becomes more suggestive of police and prosecution misconduct when there is a built-in system.

 

[Desert Fox]

That has been discussed here before. From the way Giobbi and others referred to it, I believe the room where they waited (coordinated) the interrogations is located near the interrogation rooms where Knox and Soloecito were being interrogated separately. (Giobbi said he could hear Knox's screams.) The room may have been the office (or near the office) from where interrogation room activity is overseen and from where the on/off switches and modern recording machines (computers) are located.

The police headquarters is a very modern police building with cameras and concealed microphones built-in interrogation rooms and hallway waiting areas. Such devices would be controlled from a control room.

A year ago, while googling various information, I came across information on an Italian firm that cited their role in installing the recording systems in Perugia police headquarters.

I kind of have a question. . . .Did you get any feel if the recording method was analog (tapes) or digital?

 

[Dan O.]

Apparently, then, there is evidence that the interrogations could have been readily recorded with the installed audiovisual setup (not that any reasonable person would doubt that an ad hoc system could have been used). This may be significant to the ECHR case; the failure to produce an audio or audiovisual recording of the interrogations becomes more suggestive of police and prosecution misconduct when there is a built-in system.

There have been claims thet the police station had no such recording infrastructure. But is there any official statement of what capabilities they really had? Is there any documentation as to procedures for interrogations? Is there any record keeping requirement that would show if a recording was requested or if no recording was requested?

 

[Dan O.]

...
A year ago, while googling various information, I came across information on an Italian firm that cited their role in installing the recording systems in Perugia police headquarters.

That wouldn't happen to be the same firm that was contracted to produce the budget busting animation? My recollection is that it was.

I got the impression that the environmental recording equipment was specifically installed for this case and not a permanent installation.

 

[carbonjam72]

Is something supposed to happen with Raf and Gumbel's defamation case tomorrow? Anyone know anything?

 

[Numbers]

There have been claims thet the police station had no such recording infrastructure. But is there any official statement of what capabilities they really had? Is there any documentation as to procedures for interrogations? Is there any record keeping requirement that would show if a recording was requested or if no recording was requested?

There are a series of procedural laws that relate to who is to be considered a suspect and who is to be considered an accused person, and how they are to be questioned. In this series of laws, CPP Articles 60 - 65, only CPP Article 65 paragraph 3 specifically mentions that there are minutes of the questioning. It is not specific on the method of taking minutes. However, since the laws indicate statements from the person being question may or may not be used in evidence, it seems clear that some type of record-keeping must be used.

There is another law, CPP Article 141-bis, Methods for documentation of the questioning of the detained person, that states:

1. Any questioning conducted outside the hearing {of a court?} of a person who is detained for any reason is to be documented fully, under penalty of exclusion, by means of audio or audiovisual recording. If recording tools or technical personnel are unavailable, reports by either experts or technical consultants shall be required. The questioning shall also be minuted in summary form. The transcription of the recording shall be ordered only upon the request of the parties.

CPP Art. 141-bis is placed in a section (Title 3 of Book 2) that legislates the recording of court proceedings, which must be done and may include audio or audiovisual means.

ECHR case-law has generally included pre-trial events, such as interrogations, in the protections afforded during trial. For example, the need for a person to be provided with a lawyer was extended from the trial to the first pre-trial interrogation by ECHR in Salduz v Turkey. I am not aware of a specific ECHR requirement for the recording of interrogations.

 

[Dougm]

I disagree. Of course there are inconsistencies, but for intelligent people, there are easily identifiable innocent explanations for them. If Platonov were to say, "Convince me that Raf didn't really throw Amanda under a bus ( that he was really confused, disoriented, tricked etc etc) or convince me that he really does provide her with an alibi, then my position on the case would be different", then what you say about this issue bearing on his conclusions would be true.

But he's not saying that at all. His position is that whether Mr Sollecito alibis Ms Knox or whether he does not is irrelevant. He believes Mr Sollecito to be a murderer - actually to have stabbed her. He also believes Ms Knox to be a murderer. Nothing changes for him whether there is an alibi or there is not an alibi. One cannot derive his conclusions about the murder from the interrogations. He needs to have drawn on something else, since there were no confessions and no details about how the murder was committed, from those interrogations. Yet he will not discuss this.

Platonov's position would have some integrity if he were to believe that Mr Sollecito really did withdraw his alibi for Ms Knox AND he believed him to be true in what he was saying. In other words, if Platonov thought Mr Sollecito did in fact stay in on the night of the murder and is therefore innocent, there would be some relevance and meaning to his obsession with alibis or what he believes to be lacking in connection with them.

But what he's actually saying is that he doesn't believe anything Mr Sollecito says. In particular, he does not believe him when he says (according to Platonov, that is), he went out and she stayed in. His entire discussion is based on a premise, the truth of which, he does not himself accept! It cannot, therefore, be additional evidence of Ms Knox's guilt, which is what he wants to sell you. His actual position, though he does not understand it himself is, effectively: "Raf withdrew his alibi for Amanda. But Raf lied when he said Amanda went out on her own. He seeks to evade responsibility for what he did by heaping more onto Amanda; Raf has wronged Amanda. They are both guilty of murder."

But that is the whole point. I simplified, but the basic premise is that our friend, like almost every pro-guilt person I have talked to, cannot get past the idea that "they lied". I mean, why would innocent people be twisting their stories? Why would they tell the cops a version of the story that turned out not to be true? Why would they kiss in front of the crime scene if they are not guilty? That is the logic at work here.

I have no interest in speaking for anyone, but after a series of cryptic posts referring back to the night of the 5th/6th, and indicating that there is HUGE importance in Raffaele's statement (which none of us has ever seen, BTW), I can only deduce that "they lied" is the root of all deductions there.

Done with that topic. Should have left it alone to begin with.

 

[Samson]

But that is the whole point. I simplified, but the basic premise is that our friend, like almost every pro-guilt person I have talked to, cannot get past the idea that "they lied". I mean, why would innocent people be twisting their stories? Why would they tell the cops a version of the story that turned out not to be true? Why would they kiss in front of the crime scene if they are not guilty? That is the logic at work here.

I have no interest in speaking for anyone, but after a series of cryptic posts referring back to the night of the 5th/6th, and indicating that there is HUGE importance in Raffaele's statement (which none of us has ever seen, BTW), I can only deduce that "they lied" is the root of all deductions there.

Done with that topic. Should have left it alone to begin with.

Well, this is highly topical here. My best response to the highlighted part is to quote the last few lines from the editorial in this morning's herald.

Judges are the best rulers on law and juries can be good judges of character and fact. But two juries in the Pora case could not believe - despite the oddities and inconsistencies in his account - that someone would confess to a crime he did not commit. The case needed a more independent review long ago.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11411896

This post is seriously directed at you many readers from PMFs that read here.

There is now not one New Zealander that believes this man had anything to do with the crime for which he just served 22 years jail.

And please note, all of you, that there is a man in jail, Malcolm Rewa, who has been convicted of 27 rapes, and his dna was the only dna found at the scene, or inside the murder victim.
This is a replica of what is going on here, you people are in denial. The case is near identical. He was tried twice, and found not guilty beyond reasonable doubt of her murder. What do you think, a bit like Rudy Guede?

platonov, as the current stalwart in favour of their guilt, what do you think of this situation in New Zealand, and does it have any possible bearing on the plight of Raffaele and Amanda?

 

[Numbers]

Well, this is highly topical here. My best response to the highlighted part is to quote the last few lines from the editorial in this morning's herald.

Judges are the best rulers on law and juries can be good judges of character and fact. But two juries in the Pora case could not believe - despite the oddities and inconsistencies in his account - that someone would confess to a crime he did not commit. The case needed a more independent review long ago.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11411896

This post is seriously directed at you many readers from PMFs that read here.

There is now not one New Zealander that believes this man had anything to do with the crime for which he just served 22 years jail.

And please note, all of you, that there is a man in jail, Malcolm Rewa, who has been convicted of 27 rapes, and his dna was the only dna found at the scene, or inside the murder victim.
This is a replica of what is going on here, you people are in denial. The case is near identical. He was tried twice, and found not guilty beyond reasonable doubt of her murder. What do you think, a bit like Rudy Guede?

platonov, as the current stalwart in favour of their guilt, what do you think of this situation in New Zealand, and does it have any possible bearing on the plight of Raffaele and Amanda?

Was there a rationale provided by the defense of Rewa that somehow overwhelmed the DNA evidence? Or was the "judicial fact" of someone else already having been found guilty and having confessed (falsely) overwhelming to the DNA evidence in the case?

 

[Machiavelli]

IIRC, Machiavelli explained that the "control room" was an available room where the police officers met.

(...)

Actually, Machiavelli explained that the "control room" doesn't exist.
The Italian expression "cabina di regia" (translated by google as "control room") is a colloqualism that means a directorate, a coordinating group, a directive staff.

 

[Dougm]

Actually, Machiavelli explained that the "control room" doesn't exist.
The Italian expression "cabina di regia" (translated by google as "control room") is a colloqualism that means a directorate, a coordinating group, a directive staff.

That is interesting. So it doesn't mean a location, but rather, a group or team.

Would that group or team likely meet in an office or room? If I were them, I would. Just trying to understand where they would have been located while Knox and Sollecito were being interrogated. I assume somewhere they could talk privately, and close to the rooms where the interrogations were taking place, so they could go in and out of those rooms as needed per the plan.

 

[Samson]

Was there a rationale provided by the defense of Rewa that somehow overwhelmed the DNA evidence? Or was the "judicial fact" of someone else already having been found guilty and having confessed (falsely) overwhelming to the DNA evidence in the case?

Yes, Pora was tried and jailed purely because of his false confession 6 years before the dna was found to match Rewa. Just as in this case, instead of immediately presuming a known serail rapist was the killer, Pora had another 16 years to serve, while successive courts and politicians declared their system was working just fine. That judicial fact was ingrained. Interestingly, they regarded as new evidence at the privy council that Pora had foetal alcohol syndrome, but my belief after seeing myriads of cases discussed here, is that this is a red herring. Far more relevant was his belief there was a 20k reward for the taking. No lawyers at two days of confessions, and so on and so forth. I sincerely hope these guilters take careful note of this case, because they are currently hellbent on a conviction in very similar circumstances. They will be one day, and soon I hope, confronted with a conventional wisdom that declares them to be not just wrong, but sadistic in their pursuit.

 

[Bill Williams]

That is interesting. So it doesn't mean a location, but rather, a group or team.

Would that group or team likely meet in an office or room? If I were them, I would. Just trying to understand where they would have been located while Knox and Sollecito were being interrogated. I assume somewhere they could talk privately, and close to the rooms where the interrogations were taking place, so they could go in and out of those rooms as needed per the plan.

It's extremely good to see Machiavelli back. Yet, his post is a classic - splitting of hairs. We're now going to argue about the ontic-reality of the room in which this group met!!!

Was it a "control room" or "a room in which they exercised control"? Dietrology has never been so much fun- and has been missing for the last week or two.

Anyway, welcome back Machiavelli. Don't stay away so long.

 

[Samson]

There is one quite intelligent poster on PMF, Fiona, that holds as pivotal that innocence is impossible to imagine with Amanda's false accusation and claim to be at the scene. She was the only poster on PMF ORG in october 2011 to suggest to her fellow group that Amanda and Raffaele should be regarded as legally innocent. All the rest persevered with the vitriol.

 

[Dougm]

There is one quite intelligent poster on PMF, Fiona, that holds as pivotal that innocence is impossible to imagine with Amanda's false accusation and claim to be at the scene. She was the only poster on PMF ORG in october 2011 to suggest to her fellow group that Amanda and Raffaele should be regarded as legally innocent. All the rest persevered with the vitriol.

She is just the only one who will admit it. That premise goes to the core of almost all of their ideas around the case. Just look at how so many of them don't believe anything Amanda and Raff said, but DO believe (at least some version) of the story she "imagined" during the famous interrogation. This despite the fact that what she said during that session makes no sense, and is not supported by any of the other evidence.

It didn't even make any sense for her to name Lumumba, if she knew he was innocent. But that doesn't stop those who desperately want to find a way for her to be guilty.

 

[Machiavelli]

It's extremely good to see Machiavelli back. Yet, his post is a classic - splitting of hairs. We're now going to argue about the ontic-reality of the room in which this group met!!!

Was it a "control room" or "a room in which they exercised control"? Dietrology has never been so much fun- and has been missing for the last week or two.

Anyway, welcome back Machiavelli. Don't stay away so long.

No, it's not a room. "Cabina di regia" is a group of people, not a place.

 

[Machiavelli]

That is interesting. So it doesn't mean a location, but rather, a group or team.

Would that group or team likely meet in an office or room? If I were them, I would. Just trying to understand where they would have been located while Knox and Sollecito were being interrogated. I assume somewhere they could talk privately, and close to the rooms where the interrogations were taking place, so they could go in and out of those rooms as needed per the plan.

It can be a team, but even a single person; "cabina di regia" means those who basically only direct, and don't participate.
In the testimony Giobbi refers as himself and Profazio (two people) as those who directed the operation, but they did not take part to the interviews.

Giobbi also said it was himself and Profazio who thought - at a certain point - that given the contradictions that emerged from the questionings and their latest declarations, the informants should not be regarded as witness any longer, and thus Giobbi and Profazio decided to suspend the interrogations and to call the Prosecutor. (they acted so precautionally, not formally; I point out the police cannot declare someone a suspect, only the Prosecutor or another Magistrate can do so.)

 

[Bill Williams]

No, it's not a room. "Cabina di regia" is a group of people, not a place.

No worries, Sheldon.

 

[Magister]

No, it's not a room. "Cabina di regia" is a group of people, not a place.

Cabina di regia also means a control room

http://context.reverso.net/translation/italian-english/cabina+di+regia

 

[Machiavelli]

That has been discussed here before. From the way Giobbi and others referred to it, I believe the room where they waited (coordinated) the interrogations is located near the interrogation rooms where Knox and Soloecito were being interrogated separately. (Giobbi said he could hear Knox's screams.) (...)

I wouldn't summarize it as "hearing screams". Giobbi actually has some descriptive terms for the "screams"

"gridate" instead of "grida"
"urlate" instead of "urla" (specifically "urlate emotive")

Amanda era più emotiva, aveva delle reazioni molto più forti, mi ricordo benissimo grandi pianti, grandi gridate, grandi urlate emotive, ma questo poi diciamo nella fase in cui fece il nome di Lumurnba sopratutto perché io le associavo al fatto che lei ricordasse in quel frangente l'episodio specifico

"gridata" or "urlata" is not translatable "scream". It's a behaviour of yelling and shouting.

Scream is "urlo" (plural: "urla"). But with the suffix -ata it becomes something different.