Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

I find it interesting that the police have restrained Amanda's freedom of movement as early as November 3, per the phone intercepts:

This is not necessarily suspicious, meaning this does not necessarily mean that Amanda was regarded as a suspect at that time.

IIRC the police/PM in Italy have the power to detain people "informed of the facts", to make sure they are available to law enforcement. Apparently in Mexico authorities can hold witnesses in "protective custody" for up to 30 days. I know of one situation where a man who witnessed a murder was held in a hotel and not allowed to leave, because he was a key witness to a murder in Cabo San Lucas.

Even in countries where such things are voluntary, rather than compelled, Amanda might only be reflecting that she'd (at that time) been requested not to leave the country. True, the police seem to be saying that this will be cleared up, "in three days when the magistrate calls," but once again - are the police (at that time) saying this to everyone?

 

[Dan O.]

I find it interesting that the police have restrained Amanda's freedom of movement as early as November 3, per the phone intercepts:

Where would this case be if Amanda and Raffaele had left Italy before the interrogations of November 5? Of course, Patrick would never be involved. The police theory would be Amanda and raffaele as the only perpetrators. And if they don't have Patrick they wouldn't need another black guy to replace him when he comes up with an alibi. Would Rudy Guede even get their attention?

ETA: maybe it isn't so obvious that Patrick wouldn't be involved. The police were already tapping his phone and bugging his bar.

 

[Diocletus]

Where would this case be if Amanda and Raffaele had left Italy before the interrogations of November 5? Of course, Patrick would never be involved. The police theory would be Amanda and raffaele as the only perpetrators. And if they don't have Patrick they wouldn't need another black guy to replace him when he comes up with an alibi. Would Rudy Guede even get their attention?

ETA: maybe it isn't so obvious that Patrick wouldn't be involved. The police were already tapping his phone and bugging his bar.

Sure they would have found Rudy. One of Rudy's friends told them that Rudy did it, and then they raided Rudy's apartment and got a DNA match.

 

[Diocletus]

This is not necessarily suspicious, meaning this does not necessarily mean that Amanda was regarded as a suspect at that time.

IIRC the police/PM in Italy have the power to detain people "informed of the facts", to make sure they are available to law enforcement. Apparently in Mexico authorities can hold witnesses in "protective custody" for up to 30 days. I know of one situation where a man who witnessed a murder was held in a hotel and not allowed to leave, because he was a key witness to a murder in Cabo San Lucas.

Even in countries where such things are voluntary, rather than compelled, Amanda might only be reflecting that she'd (at that time) been requested not to leave the country. True, the police seem to be saying that this will be cleared up, "in three days when the magistrate calls," but once again - are the police (at that time) saying this to everyone?

I's not saying that it's "suspicious", but the fact of the matter is that restricting someone's freedom of movement exerts at least some degree of compulsion on the person, and at some point this could be contributory to an overcoming of the person's will. There isn't much difference between a detained "suspect" and a detained "witness" in some cases, this one included.

What if you have a group of 10 "suspects" (only one of whom could have committed the crime), and you detain all of them and question them. Does that get you off the hook if one of the "suspects" is later charged?

 

[Dan O.]

Who is this "Magistrate" that is to arrive in 3 days?

 

[Diocletus]

Who is this "Magistrate" that is to arrive in 3 days?

My guess was that Italian law allowed the police to hold a witness in custody for up to three days before obtaining a magistrate's order, but not sure about that. If so, the magistrate was Mignini and he was already there, it's just that he wasn't required to do anything to effect arrest until . . . November 6.

 

[Dan O.]

Sure they would have found Rudy. One of Rudy's friends told them that Rudy did it, and then they raided Rudy's apartment and got a DNA match.

The problem is that if they thought their prime suspects were on the run before they got reference DNA samples that excluded Raffaele, Rudy would be just another nut case like the guy with bloody hands using the phone at the kiosk. The police wouldn't be holding an embarrassment under arrest after a solid alibi exonerated him that they need an immediate replacement for to preserve what's left of their face. Would they even have enough evidence to obtain a search warrant on the basis of a third party claim of admission? If they still thought the DNA was Raffaele's they wouldn't even have gone to the press with the story of the 4th man that spooked Rudy into contacting his friend in the first place. And Kevin Wade would still be living in Germany.

 

[platonov]

The forgotten man

You STILL don't understand this?????!!

Is he still throwing her under a bus? I guess not. You've moved on from that bit of nonsense with our help, haven't you?

Where are you on motive?

Are you in the "She's a dirty American who hated Meredith for hating her" camp?

Or the "She killed Meredith because Meredith blamed her for Guede's stools" camp?

Or the Halloween camp? Or another camp? Kauffer's wondering. - Yikes! An illeism!!

What?
Your opinions are all fine and dandy – I do enjoy your contributions – but I asked ‘what did Raffy say’.
RS – remember him. If you don’t know – fine.

The lack of interest is conspicuous yet again. He has become here in cartwheel world what he once complained of – a forgotten man.
I feel for him. There was a time, until quite recently in fact, that he was lionised here

 

[platonov]

The fact that the GMill is falling back to a made-up financial motive argument is great. It shows us that there is no response to be made to Gill's qualifications and the substance of his opinions.

I do believe that Gill has an agenda, though. I think that he is trying to publicize the dangers of LCN when it's not done right. This case is the highest-profile, best example of a miscarriage of justice caused by DNA work that was not done properly and with integrity. Gill is using it as his soapbox.

Don’t you mean shoebox?

 

[Diocletus]

Don’t you mean shoebox?

No. Shoeboxes are what Italian police use to store critical evidence. Or should that be calendar boxes? I can't recall.

 

[Bill Williams]

What?
Your opinions are all fine and dandy – I do enjoy your contributions – but I asked ‘what did Raffy say’.RS – remember him. If you don’t know – fine.

The lack of interest is conspicuous yet again. He has become here in cartwheel world what he once complained of – a forgotten man.
I feel for him. There was a time, until quite recently in fact, that he was lionised here

You once promised that you would tell us what Raffaele had said. You never delivered on it.

My bet is that you were waiting in the wings with Ergon's translation of what he thought Raffaele had said in one interview - that Knox had been with Rudy for five days.

Even the good folk of PMF cleared that one up, and it's been crickets since.

Truth is - at every stage of this process since Nov 5/6, 2007, someone has promised us info on how Raffaele was throwing Knox under a bus so as to save his butt. It's never happened.....

..... or else someone, anyone, would be posting the proof - a YouTube video, a rebroadcast of Porta a Porta, or would be quoting from sections of either his appeal to Cassazione or the appeals' amendment.

More important - Amanda's own appearance on Daybreak two days ago has come and gone, and she, apparently, has never heard of this either. Nor have the people interviewing her. Indeed, neither of the convicting judges have heard of this either, because they both say that both Raffaele's and Amanda's alibi is mutual and consistent.

Neither of them went out that night. That's what the convicting judges say is their consistent alibi, even though (obviously) the convicting judges don't believe it. It's a complete non-issue. So repeat-away, platonov, I am sure like much in this case, sheer repetition of factoids is bound to attract a following.

 

[Bill Williams]

My guess was that Italian law allowed the police to hold a witness in custody for up to three days before obtaining a magistrate's order, but not sure about that. If so, the magistrate was Mignini and he was already there, it's just that he wasn't required to do anything to effect arrest until . . . November 6.

Even in the United States, a "Material Witness" can be held to ensure the giving of their testimony in criminal proceedings or to a grand jury.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_witness

So there does not appear to be anything revealing, really, about Knox being told not to go anywhere for three days.

As an aside, Mexico is going through the same transition from inquisitorial to adversarial, based on a 2008 amendment to its constitution. Because of the complexity of these changes through state and federal jurisdictions, Mexico is currently mid-process, which is planned to be complete in 2016.

Non-Mexican national websites sometimes assist their own travellers with info to countries like Mexico, but in truth who reads, "Your rights in Mexico" before travelling there, it's usually after the horse is gone that this barn door is even noticed as wide open.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

constraint

I's not saying that it's "suspicious", but the fact of the matter is that restricting someone's freedom of movement exerts at least some degree of compulsion on the person, and at some point this could be contributory to an overcoming of the person's will. There isn't much difference between a detained "suspect" and a detained "witness" in some cases, this one included.

What if you have a group of 10 "suspects" (only one of whom could have committed the crime), and you detain all of them and question them. Does that get you off the hook if one of the "suspects" is later charged?

You raise a good point. With respect to how suspicious this is, I would say that by itself, it is not very. However, we know that they were suspects in fact (if not in name) days before the his and hers interrogations of 5-6 November.

 

[Diocletus]

Even in the United States, a "Material Witness" can be held to ensure the giving of their testimony in criminal proceedings or to a grand jury.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_witness

So there does not appear to be anything revealing, really, about Knox being told not to go anywhere for three days.

Whatever the "material witness" rules are in the US are irrelevant. The critical inquiry is whether some degree of compulsion was felt by a suspect or arrestee. I think it's relevant that the freedom of movement of a person who was a "keyholder" (i.e., included within a narrow universe of potential suspects) was curtailed prior to arrest--she wasn't just a witness, she was suspected of being a suspect.

Further, don't you find it interesting that the arrest occurred exactly at the end of the three-day period? The magistrate went into action exactly when the police had advised three days before. They weren't just holding her as a witness because they thought they might learn something from her, rather, they were holding her as a witness to see if they should arrest her!

 

[Bill Williams]

Whatever the "material witness" rules are in the US are irrelevant. The critical inquiry is whether some degree of compulsion was felt by a suspect or arrestee. I think it's relevant that the freedom of movement of a person who was a "keyholder" (i.e., included within a narrow universe of potential suspects) was curtailed prior to arrest--she wasn't just a witness, she was suspected of being a suspect.

Further, don't you find it interesting that the arrest occurred exactly at the end of the three-day period? The magistrate went into action exactly when the police had advised three days before. They weren't just holding her as a witness because they thought they might learn something from her, rather, they were holding her as a witness to see if they should arrest her!

It was probably Edda Mellas's arrival on the 6th that precipitated the hurry on the part of the PLE - whichever way one looks at it.

They could have thought that they had a pliable, naive young-witness on their hands - who knows what could be squeezed out of her, as long as the video equipment was first turned off.....

Unfortunately all of this is speculation, because it is not as if the PLE left a paper trail to be followed. Apparently, they didn't have the budget to record key transition points in all this......

...... everything they DID record shows nothing.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Hoey case and putting the onus where it belongs

No. Shoeboxes are what Italian police use to store critical evidence. Or should that be calendar boxes? I can't recall.

Diocletus,

Indeed, it matters not in the slightest which one it was, and to pretend otherwise is to clutch at straws. It does matter that the person handling it should not previously have been at the women's flat (as I have previously documented with reference to a case near Perth), and I cannot conceive of a single good reason to repackage the knife. As the British judge in Queen v Hoey pointed out, it is the burden of the police to show that an item of evidence was correctly processed.

 

[Bill Williams]

You raise a good point. With respect to how suspicious this is, I would say that by itself, it is not very. However, we know that they were suspects in fact (if not in name) days before the his and hers interrogations of 5-6 November.

Was it not our own Machiavelli who introduced us to the concept of "strongly suspected", so that they could be strong-armed, but still denied the rights accruing to them as suspects?

 

[Dan O.]

Diocletus,

Indeed, it matters not in the slightest which one it was, and to pretend otherwise is to clutch at straws. It does matter that the person handling it should not previously have been at the women's flat (as I have previously documented with reference to a case near Perth), and I cannot conceive of a single good reason to repackage the knife. As the British judge in Queen v Hoey pointed out, it is the burden of the police to show that an item of evidence was correctly processed.

He says he was cataloging the evidence, something that should be done at the time it is collected, not afterwards at the police station.

Do we have this catalog that he created? What other evidence was cataloged that day? How many pairs of disposable gloves did he use that day? Did he change gloves with each piece of evidence? Did he handle the outside of the original evidence packaging with the same pair of gloves? Who else had been handling that evidence package?

 

[acbytesla]

Because people who kill people should go to jail.

Of course people who kill people should go to jail. And Meridith's killer did go to jail. There is of course no CREDIBLE evidence that Raffaele or Amanda had anything to do with this horrific crime and they have already wasted 4 years of their lives. Sadly, morons are still trying to save face by serving up more injustice.

 

[acbytesla]

The fact that the GMill is falling back to a made-up financial motive argument is great. It shows us that there is no response to be made to Gill's qualifications and the substance of his opinions.

I do believe that Gill has an agenda, though. I think that he is trying to publicize the dangers of LCN when it's not done right. This case is the highest-profile, best example of a miscarriage of justice caused by DNA work that was not done properly and with integrity. Gill is using it as his soapbox.

You are 100 percent right. Just look at the title of Gill'so book."Misleading DNA evidence. He's trying to point out that DNA evidence needs to be viewed carefully and with perspectve. It's a powerful tool that must not be used recklessly.