Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[katy_did]

I disagree. I think the police/PM truly thought they'd worked it all out before 9pm on the 5th. I think they'd figured out (in their own minds) that Knox had gone to meet up with Lumumba on the might of the murder (from knowing Knox's/Lumumba's phone communications around 8-9pm on the night of the murder). They also "knew" that the break-in was staged, and this pointed (in their minds) exclusively to Knox as the only person who would have had an incentive to commit such a staging. And they had, set against that, Knox and Sollecito telling them that they'd spent the whole evening/night in Sollecito's apartment.

I think therefore that the police "knew" that both Knox and Sollecito had been lying to them about them both being in Sollecito's apartment all evening. In my opinion, the police probably thought at this point that only Knox (and not Sollecito) had been directly involved in the murder itself (alongside Lumumba), and that Sollecito was lying to protect Knox. Perhaps they thought that Sollecito had also participated in the mythical post-murder clean-up, again out of some desire to protect and help Knox.

In my view, therefore, I think the police (with the knowledge of the PM) put in place a definite plan with a desired set of outcomes. I think they planned to bring in Sollecito alone, and get him to admit the "truth" - that in fact Knox had left his apartment on the night of the murder, and that he had been lying about this to protect her. I think they then planned to send out their lights-and-sirens squad to pick up Knox in a very public show of force and competence (the irony!). Knox would then be confronted with Sollecito's change of story, plus the text exchange with Lumumba. Knox would then "buckle" in turn, and "tell the police what they already knew to be the truth".

Incidentally, when the police saw that Knox's text to Lumumba read as "see you later" - something they would only have been able to see from actually seeing Knox's or Lumumba's handsets (the phone records would not have recorded the actual contents of texts), they were elated, since this only appeared to confirm their theory. They were not totally certain they knew "the truth"......

A reasonable enough theory, but I don't think there's anything more to support it than there is to support the theory they didn't really have any clear idea of what had happened, were getting a bit desperate under all the pressure, and stumbled their way into thinking they'd "cracked the case" that night. Just a night or two earlier they were dragging Hicham Khiri out of bed at 2 in the morning to interrogate him, after all, so it seems reasonable to assume they had no firm theory of what happened at that stage. And if they only thought Sollecito was covering for Amanda leaving the apartment, why did they arrest him for murder too?

I think the reason they dragged Sollecito in was the intercepted conversation about him carrying a knife. That's probably why they thought he was involved as well, even though Amanda didn't place him at the scene (that and the shoes). Frankly I think if they'd stopped to carefully consider their theory, rather than bungling their way into it that night, they'd probably have come up with a better one! For example, it would've been very easy to check what the text message exchange with Lumumba was about without jumping to the conclusion it was the precursor to murder.

 

[carbonjam72]

Here She Comes, it's Miss Crime Scene Perugia....

A reasonable enough theory, but I don't think there's anything more to support it than there is to support the theory they didn't really have any clear idea of what had happened, were getting a bit desperate under all the pressure, and stumbled their way into thinking they'd "cracked the case" that night. Just a night or two earlier they were dragging Hicham Khiri out of bed at 2 in the morning to interrogate him, after all, so it seems reasonable to assume they had no firm theory of what happened at that stage. And if they only thought Sollecito was covering for Amanda leaving the apartment, why did they arrest him for murder too?

I think the reason they dragged Sollecito in was the intercepted conversation about him carrying a knife. That's probably why they thought he was involved as well, even though Amanda didn't place him at the scene (that and the shoes). Frankly I think if they'd stopped to carefully consider their theory, rather than bungling their way into it that night, they'd probably have come up with a better one! For example, it would've been very easy to check what the text message exchange with Lumumba was about without jumping to the conclusion it was the precursor to murder.

Just want to say that I don't think its necessary that everyone thought the same thing. There could be multiple points of view at play. (So you can both be right).

And, you also have Mignini "leading" the investigation, who was under indictment for abuse of office having made claims of satanic sex murders in the Narducci trail, and once again claims he's seeing signs of pagan rites, sex, murder, having something to do with Halloween.

It's not so much a criminal investigation, as a beauty pageant, with different 'pageant judges' assessing the competitors performances according to taste.

They could all agree on a particular course of action, yet be doing so for different reasons, and mistaking a commonality of agreement on a direction to investigate, for genuine consensus.

They agree on what to do, but they are not in true agreement as to why they are doing it.

In other words, a disorganized poorly coordinated incompetent crimes scene investigation by amateurs, and coupled with abusive interrogations by out of control over aggressive poorly supervised police.

Is this starting to sound close?

 

[Strozzi]

Good job, officers!

I disagree. I think the police/PM truly thought they'd worked it all out before 9pm on the 5th. I think they'd figured out (in their own minds) that Knox had gone to meet up with Lumumba on the might of the murder (from knowing Knox's/Lumumba's phone communications around 8-9pm on the night of the murder). They also "knew" that the break-in was staged, and this pointed (in their minds) exclusively to Knox as the only person who would have had an incentive to commit such a staging. And they had, set against that, Knox and Sollecito telling them that they'd spent the whole evening/night in Sollecito's apartment.

I think therefore that the police "knew" that both Knox and Sollecito had been lying to them about them both being in Sollecito's apartment all evening. In my opinion, the police probably thought at this point that only Knox (and not Sollecito) had been directly involved in the murder itself (alongside Lumumba), and that Sollecito was lying to protect Knox. Perhaps they thought that Sollecito had also participated in the mythical post-murder clean-up, again out of some desire to protect and help Knox.

In my view, therefore, I think the police (with the knowledge of the PM) put in place a definite plan with a desired set of outcomes. I think they planned to bring in Sollecito alone, and get him to admit the "truth" - that in fact Knox had left his apartment on the night of the murder, and that he had been lying about this to protect her. I think they then planned to send out their lights-and-sirens squad to pick up Knox in a very public show of force and competence (the irony!). Knox would then be confronted with Sollecito's change of story, plus the text exchange with Lumumba. Knox would then "buckle" in turn, and "tell the police what they already knew to be the truth".

Incidentally, when the police saw that Knox's text to Lumumba read as "see you later" - something they would only have been able to see from actually seeing Knox's or Lumumba's handsets (the phone records would not have recorded the nark contents of texts), they were elated, since this only appeared to confirm their theory. They were not totally certain they knew "the truth"......

The interrogators must have been elated with themselves with what they accomplished that night.

• They got Sollecito to admit Knox had gone out and that he had been lying to protect her.
• They discovered the "see you later" text on Knox's phone.
• They got her confession to being at the murder cottage while Lumumba murdered her housemate.
• They spotted the circles in the tread of Raffaele's sneakers that resembled shoe tread marks in blood at the murder scene.
• They got the knife from Raffaele's flat.

Good job, officers!

They broke the case open in one long night. Just before Knox's mother was to arrive.

Do you think Police Chief de Felice wrote a nice letter commending Chief Inspector Giobbi for his invaluable contribution intuitively analyzing the girl and helping guide the interrogations? The sharp-eyed detective who spotted Knox provocatively swivel her hips after she put on her protective booties. I'd like to see what is in Giobbi's personnel file from that period.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Did they really not know what "see you later" means?

I seem to recall reading that when Rudy used the phrase "see you later" in one of his police interviews, that the police understood it. I have to wonder whether or not the police deliberately misunderstood the meaning of "see you later." Plus, there is "have a good evening" to consider.

RWVBWL,

Thanks for reposting what Mrs. Stefanoni wrote about the cat downstairs. It sounded more ridiculous to me this time through.

 

[Grinder]

The big problem here, though, is why didn't they call Amanda into the police station too if this were all planned? I don't see how they could've known that Raffaele would say she might've left - most likely they got him to say that as a result of how the interrogation was going against Amanda, so if she hadn't been there they'd have had no reason to pressure him into saying it. Plus, they obviously didn't believe Raffaele was at home while Amanda left, so why would they have anticipated in advance he'd say that?

I think the cops were exhausted and under pressure, felt they were no closer to finding the murderer, and then that night thought they'd had a huge breakthrough. A rush to judgment, not something they'd thought up carefully in advance.

Yes and they may have had the Mansey article. It is also possible that Raf was confused about the night more often which would be very suspicious.

If as some here are describing the evidence as the PLE wasn't sufficient for arrest or to declare them suspects would mean that Amanda didn't deserve an attorney until after she made her statement as that's when she became a suspect. That would explain the wording of the arrest document. Had they used my list it would indicate she was a suspect before the last interview.

In non technical terms she was a suspect for the reasons I listed before the night of the 5th.

 

[Sergei Walankov]

I seem to recall reading that when Rudy used the phrase "see you later" in one of his police interviews, that the police understood it.

You may correct me if I'm wrong here, but I presume what he actually said was "arrivederci", which even to the non-Italian speaker allows no room for ambiguity.

 

[anglolawyer]

Yes and they may have had the Mansey article. It is also possible that Raf was confused about the night more often which would be very suspicious.

If as some here are describing the evidence as the PLE wasn't sufficient for arrest or to declare them suspects would mean that Amanda didn't deserve an attorney until after she made her statement as that's when she became a suspect. That would explain the wording of the arrest document. Had they used my list it would indicate she was a suspect before the last interview.

In non technical terms she was a suspect for the reasons I listed before the night of the 5th.

According to the recently-posted film of Mignini outlining the case at some conference or other, she was a suspect right away, as soon as they figured the burglary was obviously staged (which is immediately) and that it had to be an inside job and that Laura and Filomena could not possibly be involved, since they:

a) were away, and
b) did not act strangely (give them a few hours or so for this second realisation)

 

[Grinder]

According to the recently-posted film of Mignini outlining the case at some conference or other, she was a suspect right away, as soon as they figured the burglary was obviously staged (which is immediately) and that it had to be an inside job and that Laura and Filomena could not possibly be involved, since they:

a) were away, and
b) did not act strangely (give them a few hours or so for this second realisation)

Yes. Are you agreeing? She was a suspect from the beginning and only became more of a focus as time went by. BUT if they admitted that early suspicion in the arrest doc it would have meant she WAS a suspect before the interview so they basically talked only about what they discovered that night.

The interview wasn't declared illegal, as Mach schooled us, but it couldn't be used because she WASN'T an official suspect until after. The Italy system and Massei got it in with the PL side suit.

Btw I think the arrival of Edda was of no concern and a red herring in terms of the timing of the police activities else Amanda would have been brought in.

 

[Dan O.]

In reconstructing the interrogations, keep in mind that the police cannot know the content of the text messages before they are seen on the phone unless the police were delibrately and systematically violating the law prior to this case. They would however know that the message was sent and could surmise from the timing that it might be important and thus devise a plan to gain access to the phone. That an officer steals the phone from Amanda and takes it out of the room supports the notion that they planned to acquire it.

 

[Dan O.]

...

The interview wasn't declared illegal, as Mach schooled us, but it couldn't be used because she WASN'T an official suspect until after. The Italy system and Massei got it in with the PL side suit.

Illegal: contrary to or forbidden by law.

The interview itself was not illegal. It was in fact anticipated by the law. What the law forbids is continuing the process where a confession was assembled from the results of the interview and Amanda was forced to sign it without the assistance of a lawyer. Mach was the one that was schooled but he failed the exam.

 

[Dan O.]

According to the recently-posted film of Mignini outlining the case at some conference or other, she was a suspect right away, as soon as they figured the burglary was obviously staged (which is immediately) and that it had to be an inside job and that Laura and Filomena could not possibly be involved, since they:

a) were away, and
b) did not act strangely (give them a few hours or so for this second realisation)

Lawyering up faster than the police can call in the crime is not strange? Then reentering a crime scene and removing personal items that were part of that scene is not strange?

 

[Grinder]

Illegal: contrary to or forbidden by law.

The interview itself was not illegal. It was in fact anticipated by the law. What the law forbids is continuing the process where a confession was assembled from the results of the interview and Amanda was forced to sign it without the assistance of a lawyer. Mach was the one that was schooled but he failed the exam.

Who was charged for breaking the law? Were they convicted?

 

[Numbers]

The big problem here, though, is why didn't they call Amanda into the police station too if this were all planned? I don't see how they could've known that Raffaele would say she might've left - most likely they got him to say that as a result of how the interrogation was going against Amanda, so if she hadn't been there they'd have had no reason to pressure him into saying it. Plus, they obviously didn't believe Raffaele was at home while Amanda left, so why would they have anticipated in advance he'd say that?

I think the cops were exhausted and under pressure, felt they were no closer to finding the murderer, and then that night thought they'd had a huge breakthrough. A rush to judgment, not something they'd thought up carefully in advance.

katy_did,
Do you believe it is normal police procedure to call persons to the police station for interviews as witnesses at about 10:00 pm or later? Do you believe it is normal police procedure to have a team of police personnel available in the station after 10:00 pm to conduct overnight "interviews" which are not recorded or minuted?

Do you think because one person is called for a late-night "interview", that somehow precludes calling or bringing in another person for a similar "interview" somewhat later according to the wishes of the police?

Do you believe that Director Giobbi, of the SCO police from Rome, who with other personnel under his command, was helping the Perugia police investigate the murder of Meredith Kercher, was not being truthful when he testified before the Massei court that he had intended for both Amanda and Raffaele to be brought in for simultaneous questioning the night of November 5, 2007? Is the English translation of his statement accurate? I am not sure if I have copied all the relevant Giobbi testimony regarding the planning of the questioning of Knox and Sollecito.

{Giobbi:}
T: questa è l'attività investigativa Presidente, che le dicevo alla luce di queste acquisizioni che poi vengono anche meditate sulla base dell'esperienza professionale, abbiamo deciso di sentire insieme i due Amanda Knox e Raffaele Sollecito all'interno della Questura la sera precedente al decreto di fermo emesso dal Pubblico ministero. Questo è diciamo a grandi linee il percorso investigativo che io personalmente ho condotto insieme al collega Profazio a supporto e ausilio della squadra mobile.

PM (DOTT. MIGNINI): si ricorda quella notte dal 5 al 6 novembre quali sono stati i passaggi senza entrare nel merito delle dichiarazioni, ma quali sono stati gli sviluppi e che cosa ha portato poi al fermo.

Google Translate of Giobbi:
T: This is the investigative activity President, I said that in the light of these acquisitions, which are then also meditate on the basis of professional experience, we decided to hear the two together Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito inside the police headquarters the night before decree custody issued by the Public Prosecutor. This is to say roughly the investigative path that I personally conducted with colleague Profazio to support and help the squad.

PM (DR. MIGNINI): remember that night November 5 to 6 what were the steps without considering the merits of the claims, but what were the developments and what then led to the detention.

Source: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda-knox-transcripts/
May 29, 2009 Giobbi testimony, page 189

{Highlighting added.}

 

[Dan O.]

Hi Codyjuneau,
Check out that quote from Annella of IIP fame, in my post above,
even John Douglas mentions that Rudy might have gone downstairs to clean up and change...

I read Dan O. and your next few exchanges,
it got me wondering more about that shower curtain/bed sheet/door window curtain.

Have a look:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1240&pictureid=9727[/qimg]

PM Mignini watches the break-in.
Can he tell us if blood was found when they 1st went inside?
Or did the cat leave it all overnight, to confuse Dr. Stefanoni?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1240&pictureid=9728[/qimg]

...

The curtain wasn't on the door. It also wasn't on the floor when the door was swung open. Evidentially the police put it there after the door was opened. why would they do that?

Just thinking about the video where the glass is smashed, the second police woman approaches the door and the first turns her away. Was this just motherly instinct not wanting the young officer to cut herself on the sharp glass? Or was there something she wasn't to see. The camera moves forward. I'm surprised it wasn't inserted through the broken window to record the scene before the police started trampling through it.

ETA: Speaking of the cat, where is the cat?

 

[Grinder]

There has been a dispute about Giobbi's testimony as others of the PLE and IIRC Amanda herself said only Raf was called in. I suppose we should check with Follain (get on that Bill). Some speculate that Giobbi was trying to make himself more prescient. He added the term with "mathematically certainty" to his claim which may have peaked the interest of Thoughtful.

 

[RoseMontague]

My memory of this is that the code pertains to the usability of the statements. The first statement was usable against others but not Amanda because she was a witness, then full stop, she became a suspect and the second statement was not usable because she did not have a lawyer present as a suspect. They were able to get in the side door on the first statement because of the false accusation. Migi attempted to get in the side door on the second statement with the acting as a notary baloney but failed.

 

[Numbers]

Who was charged for breaking the law? Were they convicted?

Grinder,
May I ask what your meaning is here?

Which laws are you referring to?

Are you aware that, in Italy, there are procedural laws that do not have criminal penalties, but affect the course of criminal proceedings? Such laws are compiled in the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, the CPP. No one is convicted of violating such laws. When such a law is violated, there is a procedural consequence; for example, statements taken contrary to law may not be used in legal proceedings.

CPP Article 64, paragraph 3-bis, is an example of a procedural law. If the laws of Art. 64, para. 3 are not followed, the statements obtained in questioning are excluded. Paragraph 3 itself specifies that a questioned person must be given 3 warnings prior to questioning: a) his statements can always be used against him; b) he has the right to remain silent; c) if he makes any statement on facts concerning the liability of others, he will become a witness in relation to those facts {presumably a warning against calunnia?}.

There is another set of laws in Italy that have criminal penalties attached. That is, one (finally) convicted of violating such a law may be imprisoned. This set of laws are called criminal laws and are compiled in the Italian Criminal Code, the CP.

(There is a an Italian code of civil law as well.)

{Emphasis added.}

ETA: I have emphasized the wording about warnings to be given before questioning because those warnings were not given prior to the questioning of either Amanda or Raffaele on November 5, 2007. If they had been, the police would have produced signed documents acknowledging receipt of such warnings.

 

[RoseMontague]

There has been a dispute about Giobbi's testimony as others of the PLE and IIRC Amanda herself said only Raf was called in. I suppose we should check with Follain (get on that Bill). Some speculate that Giobbi was trying to make himself more prescient. He added the term with "mathematically certainty" to his claim which may have peaked the interest of Thoughtful.

How was he called in exactly, meaning by phone or in person and by whom? I am curious at the exact exchange as well. If it was something like we need you to come into the station at 10PM and RS replied we'll be there, I can understand skipping going through the same with AK.

 

[Dan O.]

How was he called in exactly, meaning by phone or in person and by whom? I am curious at the exact exchange as well. If it was something like we need you to come into the station at 10PM and RS replied we'll be there, I can understand skipping going through the same with AK.

The whole exchange was recorded on the wiretap on Raffaele's phone. The transcripts are here: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/statements-phone-taps-prison-intercepts/

 

[MichaelB]

How was he called in exactly, meaning by phone or in person and by whom? I am curious at the exact exchange as well. If it was something like we need you to come into the station at 10PM and RS replied we'll be there, I can understand skipping going through the same with AK.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-co...llecito-Phone-Intercepts-Nov-3-16-English.pdf

Date. 05.11.2007

Time 20.49

Interceptions of telephonic communications Criminal Proceeding No. 8/08 R.G. Corte d’Assise

Against Knox Amanda Marie + 1
SPEAKERS: RAFFAELE + Male Voice (from the Police Station)

Raffaele - Hello?
MV - Good evening, Police Station Flying Squad.
Raffaele - Hello, go ahead. (Tell me)
MV - Listen, you have to come to us at 21:30
Raffaele - I’m having dinner, can we make, let’s say… 21:30..
MV - Can you make it at 21:30?
Raffaele - Could we make it 22:00
MV - 22:00, alright. Fi.., finish your dinner. Tw..twenty-two. A little earlier maybe.
Raffaele - Alright, I will see, that is, to make it as soon as possible.
MV - Between 21:30 and 22:00.
Raffaele -Ok.
MV - The sooner you’re here the sooner we’ll be done.
Raffaele -Ok.
MV - Hello?