Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

Let me add, as Grinder may have missed it, Amanda mentioned Patrick in a call we know the cops intercepted and transcribed. My THEORY predicted this several threads ago. No need to look it up

Actually she reports that Patrick's name was on the outgoing message and that she didn't remember deleting his text but expresses no doubt that she did. Of course she didn't remember texting him either. Maybe the cops did the texting themselves.

 

[acbytesla]

Let me add, as Grinder may have missed it, Amanda mentioned Patrick in a call we know the cops intercepted and transcribed. My THEORY predicted this several threads ago. No need to look it up

I really think that all of this moot, I do think that the police led Amanda into naming Patrick. But this is all a "she said, the said" situation. Impossible to prove either way In a court.

 

[Strozzi]

I really think that all of this moot, I do think that the police led Amanda into naming Patrick. But this is all a "she said, the said" situation. Impossible to prove either way In a court.

Maybe when Mignini gets around to cleaning out his garage he'll find the recording and share it with us.

 

[komponisto]

Haven't we been over this enough. The police knew about the text exchange as early as November 3. They had Patrick's phone number and this would give them his name. They had bugged his bar and were intercepting his phone calls. They directed the interrogation towards that text and specifically took the phone and showed the text to Amanda. Then they have the unmitigated gall to testify that Amanda was the first to say Patrick's "name".

Is this your definition of police work? Is it just a game to trick a suspect into saying a name so they can make the arrest and blame the consequences on the suspect that said the name?

This whole subject remains a beserk button of mine, possibly my biggest one relating to this case.

There's been a lot of very understandable veneration of Hellmann over the past week, and indeed, given that the standard for comparison is the likes of Massei and Nencini, he does look like a heroic paragon of truth, justice, and integrity, not to mention courage and common sense.

However, the fact remains that it was he who convicted Amanda of dolo (criminal intent) with regard to the Lumumba affair, thereby endowing with judicial legitimacy the ignorant, ill-informed but overwhelmingly popular opinion (especially in Italy) that Amanda, while maybe not an actual killer, is at the very least a selfish, malicious calunniatrice who eagerly threw an innocent man overboard as soon as she found it convenient -- because, of course, there's no such thing as a coerced statement, is there?

This despite the fact that plenty of evidence in the record was available to him and his court (starting with the very text of Amanda's statements -- "I confusedly remember that he killed her" -- really, police? You actually arrest people on the basis of statements like that? -- not to mention the two subsequent memoriali) to strongly suggest that Amanda, indeed, was not in any state of "intending or wishing" during that infamous psychological torture session that is euphemistically referred to as an "interrogation".

So Hellmann and Zanetti, for all their laudable courage and notwithstanding the credit they are legitimately owed for seeing reason where their colleagues didn't, still have something serious to answer for, IMHO. Thanks to them the legend of Amanda's "calumny" persists, continues to shape public opinion in Italy and elsewhere, provides Lumumba with a sympathetic audience for his own misdirected defamation campaign (would that he dared to speak out against the true culprits in his misfortune), while the police remain officially blameless for their appallingly heavy-handed, utterly unnecessary, useless torture tactics.

There's a lot of discussion going on in Italy now about standards for handling DNA evidence. I don't see any corresponding discussion going on about coerced confessions and the uselessness of witness statements made under the duress of police interrogation, despite the fact that the latter was probably an even greater contributor to the injustice of this case than the former. This was a gigantic educational opportunity which Hellmann missed, and thanks to him, the media and public missed it too.

 

[Grinder]

I really think that all of this moot, I do think that the police led Amanda into naming Patrick. But this is all a "she said, the said" situation. Impossible to prove either way In a court.

No it's a no one said what Strozzi claimed in his correction of an article or post, He said the police called Patrick a murderer first and Amanda just repeated it and not even Amanda claims that. Period. I was not I that made an issue of it, it was Strozzi. Of course, they thought he was involved along with her but even her account leaves the impression that they didn't know who had done what but were sure she did know.

There's been a lot of very understandable veneration of Hellmann over the past week, and indeed, given that the standard for comparison is the likes of Massei and Nencini, he does look like a heroic paragon of truth, justice, and integrity, not to mention courage and common sense.

However, the fact remains that it was he who convicted Amanda of dolo (criminal intent) with regard to the Lumumba affair, thereby endowing with judicial legitimacy the ignorant, ill-informed but overwhelmingly popular opinion (especially in Italy) that Amanda, while maybe not an actual killer, is at the very least a selfish, malicious calunniatrice who eagerly threw an innocent man overboard as soon as she found it convenient -- because, of course, there's no such thing as a coerced statement, is there?

Agree totally. There was even poster, a later to be friend of the family, that was convinced Hellmann had just right. The PGP have used it for calling her a racist (ignoring that if they were right a black man was involved and she knew it) and trying somehow to make all of us racists and anti-Semites. It always seemed to me that Hellmann was misdirected in trying to throw the PLE a bone.

 

[anglolawyer]

No it's a no one said what Strozzi claimed in his correction of an article or post, He said the police called Patrick a murderer first and Amanda just repeated it and not even Amanda claims that. Period. I was not I that made an issue of it, it was Strozzi. Of course, they thought he was involved along with her but even her account leaves the impression that they didn't know who had done what but were sure she did know.



Agree totally. There was even poster, a later to be friend of the family, that was convinced Hellmann had just right. The PGP have used it for calling her a racist (ignoring that if they were right a black man was involved and she knew it) and trying somehow to make all of us racists and anti-Semites. It always seemed to me that Hellmann was misdirected in trying to throw the PLE a bone.

I agree with this. The other side was always implacable, as 'we' should be now. No prisoners. Some fights are to the death.

 

[acbytesla]

This whole subject remains a beserk button of mine, possibly my biggest one relating to this case.

There's been a lot of very understandable veneration of Hellmann over the past week, and indeed, given that the standard for comparison is the likes of Massei and Nencini, he does look like a heroic paragon of truth, justice, and integrity, not to mention courage and common sense.

However, the fact remains that it was he who convicted Amanda of dolo (criminal intent) with regard to the Lumumba affair, thereby endowing with judicial legitimacy the ignorant, ill-informed but overwhelmingly popular opinion (especially in Italy) that Amanda, while maybe not an actual killer, is at the very least a selfish, malicious calunniatrice who eagerly threw an innocent man overboard as soon as she found it convenient -- because, of course, there's no such thing as a coerced statement, is there?

This despite the fact that plenty of evidence in the record was available to him and his court (starting with the very text of Amanda's statements -- "I confusedly remember that he killed her" -- really, police? You actually arrest people on the basis of statements like that? -- not to mention the two subsequent memoriali) to strongly suggest that Amanda, indeed, was not in any state of "intending or wishing" during that infamous psychological torture session that is euphemistically referred to as an "interrogation".

So Hellmann and Zanetti, for all their laudable courage and notwithstanding the credit they are legitimately owed for seeing reason where their colleagues didn't, still have something serious to answer for, IMHO. Thanks to them the legend of Amanda's "calumny" persists, continues to shape public opinion in Italy and elsewhere, provides Lumumba with a sympathetic audience for his own misdirected defamation campaign (would that he dared to speak out against the true culprits in his misfortune), while the police remain officially blameless for their appallingly heavy-handed, utterly unnecessary, useless torture tactics.

There's a lot of discussion going on in Italy now about standards for handling DNA evidence. I don't see any corresponding discussion going on about coerced confessions and the uselessness of witness statements made under the duress of police interrogation, despite the fact that the latter was probably an even greater contributor to the injustice of this case than the former. This was a gigantic educational opportunity which Hellmann missed, and thanks to him, the media and public missed it too.

Very well said. As bad as the DNA evidence was, arresting anyone, Amanda, Raffaele or Patrick based on that interrogation was silly. Now I could see them arresting Raffaele and Amanda based on their impression that Raffaele's shoes were a match to the bloody shoe prints, but they didn't make that mistake until later. I have always been amazed when people refer to that statement as a confession. Only people that are biased or idiots would refer to that as a confession.

 

[Grinder]

I agree with this. The other side was always implacable, as 'we' should be now. No prisoners. Some fights are to the death.

I thought you were against going after them.

 

[Kauffer]

This whole subject remains a beserk button of mine, possibly my biggest one relating to this case.

There's been a lot of very understandable veneration of Hellmann over the past week, and indeed, given that the standard for comparison is the likes of Massei and Nencini, he does look like a heroic paragon of truth, justice, and integrity, not to mention courage and common sense.

However, the fact remains that it was he who convicted Amanda of dolo (criminal intent) with regard to the Lumumba affair, thereby endowing with judicial legitimacy the ignorant, ill-informed but overwhelmingly popular opinion (especially in Italy) that Amanda, while maybe not an actual killer, is at the very least a selfish, malicious calunniatrice who eagerly threw an innocent man overboard as soon as she found it convenient -- because, of course, there's no such thing as a coerced statement, is there?

This despite the fact that plenty of evidence in the record was available to him and his court (starting with the very text of Amanda's statements -- "I confusedly remember that he killed her" -- really, police? You actually arrest people on the basis of statements like that? -- not to mention the two subsequent memoriali) to strongly suggest that Amanda, indeed, was not in any state of "intending or wishing" during that infamous psychological torture session that is euphemistically referred to as an "interrogation".

So Hellmann and Zanetti, for all their laudable courage and notwithstanding the credit they are legitimately owed for seeing reason where their colleagues didn't, still have something serious to answer for, IMHO. Thanks to them the legend of Amanda's "calumny" persists, continues to shape public opinion in Italy and elsewhere, provides Lumumba with a sympathetic audience for his own misdirected defamation campaign (would that he dared to speak out against the true culprits in his misfortune), while the police remain officially blameless for their appallingly heavy-handed, utterly unnecessary, useless torture tactics.

There's a lot of discussion going on in Italy now about standards for handling DNA evidence. I don't see any corresponding discussion going on about coerced confessions and the uselessness of witness statements made under the duress of police interrogation, despite the fact that the latter was probably an even greater contributor to the injustice of this case than the former. This was a gigantic educational opportunity which Hellmann missed, and thanks to him, the media and public missed it too.

But Hellmann has provided Amanda, wittingly or unwittingly with the means to over turn the calunnia. I'm not sure whether you translated the relevant part of his report, but here it is:

"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."

Hellmann concedes the violation of Amanda's procedural rights and thus her human rights:

1) Right to counsel
2) Right to silence
3) Right to an independent interpreter

He questions the spontaneity of her statements, (we know they were not usable anyway since there was no valid waiver), notes that psychological pressure was applied and implies that the timing of the interrogation and its length was inappropriate.

In due course, this case will be considered by the ECHR - can there be any better evidence to place before that court than that the violations complained of have been confirmed by the convicting national judge?

As some of us have written here (and I have gone on about it ad nauseum), the calunnia conviction will be vacated - eventually.

I take your point about public perception, but I hope, once the means have been provided, that Italy can be properly acquainted with the real facts of that awful night in the questura and as a result of the ECHR ruling to come, the rights of suspects will be strengthened.

 

[acbytesla]

[/HILITE]

But Hellmann has provided Amanda, wittingly or unwittingly with the means to over turn the calunnia. I'm not sure whether you translated the relevant part of his report, but here it is:

"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."

Hellmann concedes the violation of Amanda's procedural rights and thus her human rights:

1) Right to counsel
2) Right to silence
3) Right to an independent interpreter

He questions the spontaneity of her statements, (we know they were not usable anyway since there was no valid waiver), notes that psychological pressure was applied and implies that the timing of the interrogation and its length was inappropriate.

In due course, this case will be considered by the ECHR - can there be any better evidence to place before that court than that the violations complained of have been confirmed by the convicting national judge?

As some of us have written here (and I have gone on about it ad nauseum), the calunnia conviction will be vacated - eventually.

I take your point about public perception, but I hope, once the means have been provided, that Italy can be properly acquainted with the real facts of that awful night in the questura and as a result of the ECHR ruling to come, the rights of suspects will be strengthened.

And yet he convicted her of the callunia, which is entirely the result of the interrogation, there is no other evidence of the callunia so how can she be convicted of that offense? It's a poisonous tree. Don't they have that concept in Italy?

 

[acbytesla]

I thought you were against going after them.

I think he was referring to Hellmann.

 

[Bill Williams]

[/HILITE]

But Hellmann has provided Amanda, wittingly or unwittingly with the means to over turn the calunnia. I'm not sure whether you translated the relevant part of his report, but here it is:

"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."

Hellmann concedes the violation of Amanda's procedural rights and thus her human rights:

1) Right to counsel
2) Right to silence
3) Right to an independent interpreter

He questions the spontaneity of her statements, (we know they were not usable anyway since there was no valid waiver), notes that psychological pressure was applied and implies that the timing of the interrogation and its length was inappropriate.

In due course, this case will be considered by the ECHR - can there be any better evidence to place before that court than that the violations complained of have been confirmed by the convicting national judge?

As some of us have written here (and I have gone on about it ad nauseum), the calunnia conviction will be vacated - eventually.

I take your point about public perception, but I hope, once the means have been provided, that Italy can be properly acquainted with the real facts of that awful night in the questura and as a result of the ECHR ruling to come, the rights of suspects will be strengthened.

It's just a guess and an uninformed one at that but - the reason why the March 2015 ISC confirmed this (again) might be because of larger fish to fry.

Without smacks to the head, without translators who actually are part of the interrogation team, without denial of lawyers.....

..... and let's not forget, that the cops when fighting mafia influence need the courts to look the other way when the last thing seen on the videotape is the interrogating officer turning to the camera and saying, "Hey Luigi, turn off the camera for a minute, will'ya? We have to explain something to Antonio here....."

It's just a guess that the ISC (and Hellmann) have it in their judicial DNA to protect cops at interrogation.

The whole "time served" element of this is the carpet under which that dust can be swept.

 

[anglolawyer]

I thought you were against going after them.

Not talking about small fry. I mean Mig et al. Sometimes you have to kick them when they're down.

 

[carbonjam72]

[/HILITE]

But Hellmann has provided Amanda, wittingly or unwittingly with the means to over turn the calunnia. I'm not sure whether you translated the relevant part of his report, but here it is:

"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."

Hellmann concedes the violation of Amanda's procedural rights and thus her human rights:

1) Right to counsel
2) Right to silence
3) Right to an independent interpreter

He questions the spontaneity of her statements, (we know they were not usable anyway since there was no valid waiver), notes that psychological pressure was applied and implies that the timing of the interrogation and its length was inappropriate.

In due course, this case will be considered by the ECHR - can there be any better evidence to place before that court than that the violations complained of have been confirmed by the convicting national judge?

As some of us have written here (and I have gone on about it ad nauseum), the calunnia conviction will be vacated - eventually.

I take your point about public perception, but I hope, once the means have been provided, that Italy can be properly acquainted with the real facts of that awful night in the questura and as a result of the ECHR ruling to come, the rights of suspects will be strengthened.

I think Hellman did the best he could manage. This all but tees up an ECHR appeal, with allowing Amanda to be safely out of the country. Not visiting Italy until ECHR resolves it all, is a small price to pay - one could imagine Hellman reasoning.

After the Nencini conviction Hellman said he wished he had acquitted Amanda of the calunnia too. I don't think the climate of freedom in Italy is comparable to the US or the UK. There is a residual stench of fascism, as others have pointed out.

Listening to Hellman describe the treatment he received after he acquitted Amanda and Raf was an eye opener. His colleagues wanted these convictions to stick, and many probably still do. Except now they will keep a low profile and hope they are not criticized too badly in the investigations that will surely be coming.

Most likely, Stef and other cops, maybe Finzi for example, will get blamed for misleading their superiors, like Mignini.

Big Mig may ultimately have to accept responsibility for the whole fiasco, as the person in charge of it all - and who supplied the satanic element, but the question is will they chalk it up to mere incompetence or actual intentional malice?

Either way, I think Mignini will not be a judge for very much longer, and quite possibly, not even a free man. Amanda and Raf beat that mad pompous idiot after all.

 

[anglolawyer]

I think he was referring to Hellmann.

No, what Hellman showed was the futility of compromise with those responsible for this saga. He tossed them a bone but they didn't crawl back under their rock. Lesson learned.

 

[Kauffer]

It's just a guess and an uninformed one at that but - the reason why the March 2015 ISC confirmed this (again) might be because of larger fish to fry.

Without smacks to the head, without translators who actually are part of the interrogation team, without denial of lawyers.....

..... and let's not forget, that the cops when fighting mafia influence need the courts to look the other way when the last thing seen on the videotape is the interrogating officer turning to the camera and saying, "Hey Luigi, turn off the camera for a minute, will'ya? We have to explain something to Antonio here....."

It's just a guess that the ISC (and Hellmann) have it in their judicial DNA to protect cops at interrogation.

The whole "time served" element of this is the carpet under which that dust can be swept.

I heard it mentioned Bill, but the matter was not before the ISC to confirm. The ISC had already confirmed it, before sending the murder case to Nencini.

 

[carbonjam72]

Not talking about small fry. I mean Mig et al. Sometimes you have to kick them when they're down.

I've heard there is a sying of the judiciary in Italy, something to the effect that, "they do their own laundry".

I'm guessing Mignini is about due for a "spin dry, with High Heat".

 

[Kauffer]

And yet he convicted her of the callunia, which is entirely the result of the interrogation, there is no other evidence of the callunia so how can she be convicted of that offense? It's a poisonous tree. Don't they have that concept in Italy?

Well I think he's on record now as saying he wished he had acquitted. He was obviously (with hindsight and in my opinion) trying not to suggest the police committed criminal offences. It was disappointing.

His reasoning was somewhat peculiar.

 

[anglolawyer]

I've heard there is a sying of the judiciary in Italy, something to the effect that, "they do their own laundry".

I'm guessing Mignini is about due for a "spin dry, with High Heat".

They should investigate the knife and the clasp. And the illegal interrogations. That should be enough to start with.

 

[carbonjam72]

In 2015, Calunnia conviction or sentence confirmed?

I heard it mentioned Bill, but the matter was not before the ISC to confirm. The ISC had already confirmed it, before sending the murder case to Nencini.

Mach might be a better resource on this point, but is it possible that the crime of calunnia was confirmed by cassation in 2013, but the sentencing was sent back to nencini to consider the aggravated circumstance that would enhance the sentence?

So cassation in 2015 was not confirming the calunnia conviction, but rejecting Nencini's finding of aggravation AND affirming the previous sentence of 3 years, without aggravation (which is the only possible consistent outcome that can go with the acquittals - since the aggravation would require an effort to deflect attention from one's own guilt)?