Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

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.

I hope to have news soon that will shock even you! Then again I might not and will have to suffer the Grinder-consequences. It's a living.

 

[Numbers]

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.

{Highlighting added to quote.}

We seem to get tied up in language. The interview or interrogation per se (that is, by itself) was not illegal. The procedures and lack of procedures used violated Italian procedural law. The (alleged) misconduct of the police, at least in Amanda's interrogation, violated Italian criminal law, CP Art. 377-bis, if one accepts her allegation that the police threatened and hit her. Calling the interrogation an "illegal interrogation" is short-hand for saying it was an interrogation with illegal features. Similarly, the charge of "aggravated calunnia" is in full "calunnia with aggravating circumstances".

That the police and prosecutor (PM Mignini) were concerned about Amanda's allegation against the police, stated in open court in her testimony during the trial before Judge Massei's panel, is shown by the prosecutor charging her with calunnia. (A false accusation can only be considered calunnia [a criminal charge] if made to a "judicial authority" which in Italy means the police, a prosecutor, or a judge. Otherwise, it is considered defamation.)

And the false accusation in "calunnia" must be an accusation of criminal activity. Thus, the prosecutor Mignini acknowledges by charging Amanda with calunnia for her statements about the police misconduct of threatening and hitting her, that if those statements of hers were true, the police would have committed a crime.

 

[Numbers]

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.

{Highlighting added to quote.}

Another bit of correction. I had thought that Amanda's statements from the interrogation were only important and imported into the trial because of the Lumumba civil suit.

However, there is a Catch-22 in Italian law. The second, "spontaneous" statement, apparently could be used for a criminal charge of calunnia because of a CSC ruling from years before (sorry, don't have the cite at hand), the court assuming it was truly "spontaneous". Hellmann did some verbal trickery in his motivation report to claim that Amanda was no longer under pressure at that point, and he ignored the testimony of the defense memory expert in reaching that conclusion (a part of the judgment the ECHR could therefore find arbitrary).

 

[katy_did]

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.



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

{Highlighting added.}

They went to Hicham Khiri's house and dragged him out of bed at 2 in the morning for questioning just 48 hours earlier. So yeah, it does seem like it was normal police procedure during this investigation to have officers on duty all night. In Raffaele's case, I think they suspected him because they found out he carried a knife (and managed to insult the cops too when he was speaking to his father about it) so that's probably why they called him in for evening questioning. Still not as dramatic as the way they questioned Khiri.

Of course they could've called Amanda in later, but if they thought she was involved but not Raffaele, it would've made sense to at least question her at the same time as him, or even to question her alone. Also if they thought Patrick was involved, it's strange that AFAIK they never questioned him prior to his arrest.

I think Giobbi is lying: he was bragging about how clever he was to know straight away they were guilty and how of course he called them both in to be questioned. He really thought they were guilty and wanted to take as much credit for their arrests as possible. He's contradicted by everyone else involved, both Amanda/Raffaele and the other cops, so to me it makes most sense that he was just making stuff up.

 

[Grinder]

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.

Thanks how I remember it as well. The ISC said neither statement could be used in the murder trial.

 

[Grinder]

Grinder,

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.

yes we all know this. do you have some special knowledge of Italian law?

Illegal implies criminal -

il·le·gal
i(l)ˈlēɡəl/
adjective
1.
contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law.
​

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?}.

yes we all know this.

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.)

we all know this.

As the most common definition of illegal demonstrates the word generally means criminal. I by the way think that the type of questioning by the flying squad should be criminal. For purposes of this conversation the interrogation fruits were ruled inadmissible and the action was improper.

It remains that the PLE thought they were involved but didn't name them as suspects until after the statements. The heart of what we started with is that with what they thought they knew arrest wasn't unreasonable. Where the system totally failed first was not releasing them after the first hearing and charging them a year later. Had everything been the same but they were released to "home" detention and then the charges never filed there wouldn't have been much of anything to this case.

 

[Grinder]

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 22:00MV - 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?

I wonder if the we is as ambiguous in Italian as English. Even in English it would seem Raf is saying we in the sense of the caller and him, not Amanda.

 

[RWVBWL]

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?

Thanks for the info MichaelB,
I know that it's been available for awhile, but hey, we each do not always have time to read everything about this case we discuss, and it's nice to have things brought forth so that we may learn from others.

From what I know,
Raff was at a bro's flat with Amanda, having dinner and getting high on a spinello and hangin' out, trying to regain a sense of normalcy, I've read, after Meredith's murder when he received that phone call.

No where above in that phone call does the caller ask that Raff bring Amanda with him to the Questura that night.

This would have been the 1st time that Raff was called in alone.
And he showed up stoned, whoa...

From what I recall,
Raff was always with Amanda when she was being questioned, and vice verse, right?
As Grinder notes above, Raff asks "Could we make it 22:00."

BUT as Strozzi points out,
ILE knew Amanda's Mom was flying out to Italy from Seattle,
almost half a world away and was due to arrive tomorrow.

Judge Claudia Mattenini even said so in her court, let me remind everyone:

Judge Matteini wrote:
As for the flight risk, it is still present. Your family lives in the United States, so it would be extremely easy for you to leave the country. The fact that you did not do so before you were arrested is totally irrelevant. We must remind you that your arrest was made very early, and was effected purposely before the arrival of your mother in order to avoid just such a possibility.

Is The Judge lying?
Do you folks really think that the cops were not going to arrest Amanda Knox that night, at some point, before her Mom arrived?

 

[Numbers]

They went to Hicham Khiri's house and dragged him out of bed at 2 in the morning for questioning just 48 hours earlier. So yeah, it does seem like it was normal police procedure during this investigation to have officers on duty all night. In Raffaele's case, I think they suspected him because they found out he carried a knife (and managed to insult the cops too when he was speaking to his father about it) so that's probably why they called him in for evening questioning. Still not as dramatic as the way they questioned Khiri.

Of course they could've called Amanda in later, but if they thought she was involved but not Raffaele, it would've made sense to at least question her at the same time as him, or even to question her alone. Also if they thought Patrick was involved, it's strange that AFAIK they never questioned him prior to his arrest.

I think Giobbi is lying: he was bragging about how clever he was to know straight away they were guilty and how of course he called them both in to be questioned. He really thought they were guilty and wanted to take as much credit for their arrests as possible. He's contradicted by everyone else involved, both Amanda/Raffaele and the other cops, so to me it makes most sense that he was just making stuff up.

katy_did,
Are you aware that it is a classic police technique to question, at the same time but in separate rooms by separate teams of police, individuals who are believed to have conspired to commit a crime? And that another part of the technique is for a member of one police team interrogating suspect "A" to go to the interrogation room of suspect "B", and announce (truly or falsely) that the person they are interrogating has implicated suspect "B", so therefore "B" had better now tell the real truth?

So I believe that Giobbi helped point out this technique to the Perugians, and with his extra police staff that was available in Perugia, helped them plan and organize it.

Are you aware that the Notice of Arrest of Amanda Knox has the printed names and signatures of 36 police officers? The first two officers named are Giobbi and Facchini. They are the most senior police there. The police names are listed in order of descending rank.

Giobbi may or may not have sought to promote himself by his testimony, but it is clear that it "takes a village" of police to arrest an innocent American co-ed. Why?

I think you are underestimating Giobbi, a self-acknowledged skilled observer and interpreter of pizza eating and hip swaying, and someone who probably knows at least as much about police techniques as anyone who watches documentaries about police procedures. The technique the police used in this case was not so different from that used by the NYPD for the Central Park Five case, for example - split up the suspects, interview each, and confront each in turn with what the other had said (whether true or false).

ETA: Source: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda-knox-case-transcripts/
Notice of Arrest - Amanda Knox - Nov. 6, 2007

 

[Grinder]

{Highlighting added to quote.}

We seem to get tied up in language. The interview or interrogation per se (that is, by itself) was not illegal. The procedures and lack of procedures used violated Italian procedural law. The (alleged) misconduct of the police, at least in Amanda's interrogation, violated Italian criminal law, CP Art. 377-bis, if one accepts her allegation that the police threatened and hit her. Calling the interrogation an "illegal interrogation" is short-hand for saying it was an interrogation with illegal features. Similarly, the charge of "aggravated calunnia" is in full "calunnia with aggravating circumstances".

That the police and prosecutor (PM Mignini) were concerned about Amanda's allegation against the police, stated in open court in her testimony during the trial before Judge Massei's panel, is shown by the prosecutor charging her with calunnia. (A false accusation can only be considered calunnia [a criminal charge] if made to a "judicial authority" which in Italy means the police, a prosecutor, or a judge. Otherwise, it is considered defamation.)

And the false accusation in "calunnia" must be an accusation of criminal activity. Thus, the prosecutor Mignini acknowledges by charging Amanda with calunnia for her statements about the police misconduct of threatening and hitting her, that if those statements of hers were true, the police would have committed a crime.

yes we all know that it criminal to beat a person during an interview or actually anytime. that's not what we were talking about. the statement 1:45 was fine (not including the slaps) but couldn't be used against as she was a person with knowledge according to ILE and not a suspect.

I maintain they had plenty of things to make her a suspect before the interrogation but you dispute that and in effect take the argument of the PLE that she only became a suspect after making the statement.

 

[Numbers]

Thanks for the info MichaelB,
I know that it's been available for awhile, but hey, we each do not always have time to read everything about this case we discuss, and it's nice to have things brought forth so that we may learn from others.

From what I know,
Raff was at a bro's flat with Amanda, having dinner and getting high on a spinello and hangin' out, trying to regain a sense of normalcy, I've read, after Meredith's murder when he received that phone call.

No where above in that phone call does the caller ask that Raff bring Amanda with him to the Questura that night.

But from what I recall,
Raff was always with Amanda when she was being questioned, and vice verse, right?

So this would have been the 1st time that Raff was called in alone.
And he showed up stoned, whoa...

BUT yet ILE knew Amanda's Mom was flying out to Italy from Seattle,
almost half a world away and was due to arrive tomorrow.

Judge Claudia Mattenini even said so in her court, let me remind everyone:



Is The Judge lying?
Do you folks really think that the cops were not going to arrest Amanda Knox that night, at some point, before her Mom arrived?

Is this in the Matteini court transcript? It is a significant piece of evidence to show the ECHR that the arrest was motivated by bad faith. The implication is that the interrogation and arrest (which had its given reasons - the "reasonable suspicion" details - dependent of the statements from the interrogation) were conducted based on the scheduled arrival of a family member who one presumes could help Amanda get a lawyer.

 

[Grinder]

Judge Claudia Mattenini even said so in her court, let me remind everyone:

Judge Matteini wrote:
As for the flight risk, it is still present. Your family lives in the United States, so it would be extremely easy for you to leave the country. The fact that you did not do so before you were arrested is totally irrelevant. We must remind you that your arrest was made very early, and was effected purposely before the arrival of your mother in order to avoid just such a possibility.


Is The Judge lying?
Do you folks really think that the cops were not going to arrest Amanda Knox that night, at some point, before her Mom arrived?

Nice memory RW but I won't believe it until Follain verifies it to BW.

It makes little sense as they could have seized her passport but escape is a different reason than she would "lawyer-up". It would be interesting to know who told Matteini (what percentage of judges in I start with a M) about mom coming? One would have thought that Raf's family would have provided legal help and still a mystery why the lawyer of his dad said not to worry.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Why was Raffaele called in that night?

I recall asking a PG commenter words to the effect, "Why was Raffaele called in right then?" The answer was effectively, "There was a murder investigation going on!" This is not an answer at all. About what did they want to talk to Raffaele? What was so urgent that it could not wait until morning?

 

[RoseMontague]

I wonder if the we is as ambiguous in Italian as English. Even in English it would seem Raf is saying we in the sense of the caller and him, not Amanda.

Not perfectly clear is it? Maybe if an Italian speaker listened to it or read the Italian transcript it would help.

 

[Strozzi]

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?

Dan, smoked the local drugs. I suspect Filomena had drugs in her bedroom. When she learned from Amanda's phone call that her bedroom window was broken and a burglar had entered and the police were there Filomena got scared. She called a colleague/lawyer, raced home, and after the murder was discovered and all present were ordered outside she dashed back into her room to grab/remove something - possibly more than to recover her laptop.

 

[Numbers]

yes we all know that it criminal to beat a person during an interview or actually anytime. that's not what we were talking about. the statement 1:45 was fine (not including the slaps) but couldn't be used against as she was a person with knowledge according to ILE and not a suspect.

I maintain they had plenty of things to make her a suspect before the interrogation but you dispute that and in effect take the argument of the PLE that she only became a suspect after making the statement.

Grinder,
Sadly, your entire statement is incorrect.

I welcome your adversarial or Socratic approach (if it is that), but you do need to keep the terminology somewhat defined and precise. Also, be careful in what you are attributing to me in terms of my argument.

I will address your last paragraph first. It is important to distinguish "being a considered a suspect" from "being a suspect under reasonable suspicion". I have indicated that the police considered Amanda a suspect early - at least from Nov. 3, because they needed time to organize the all-night interrogation where they planned to allow themselves to do ILLEGAL things without recording anything. They may well have decided to "suspect" her on November 2 because the police and/or Mignini concluded - without reliable evidence - that the break-in was staged. Or maybe because she was consoled by a kiss from Raffaele and this image was captured and publicized. Or maybe because she was an attractive young American woman who fit into Mignini's obsessions. But I am not a mind-reader and cannot therefore be precise about all the details of the police/prosecution motivations.

So Amanda, IMO, was a suspect, whether in good or bad faith, to the police PRIOR to the beginning of the Nov. 5, 2007 interrogation. The REASONABLE SUSPICION for her arrest was primarily generated by the ILLEGAL procedures of that interrogation. The remaining details of the reasonable suspicion were irrelevant details, such as turning off of a cell phone, or simply incorrect. The arrest of AK, RS, and PL was illegal and a violation of the Convention because the reasonable suspicion was invalid and generated in bad faith by illegal methods.

The first statement could not be used against anyone, IIUC, because PLE did not follow the procedures of CPP Art. 63 and 64, and because CSC apparently said so. This happened in Italy, and the laws apparently are flexible there.

 

[RWVBWL]

Perugia Shock: Fight for the Freedom

Judge Matteini:
As for the flight risk, it is still present. Your family lives in the United States, so it would be extremely easy for you to leave the country. The fact that you did not do so before you were arrested is totally irrelevant. We must remind you that your arrest was made very early, and was effected purposely before the arrival of your mother in order to avoid just such a possibility

.

Is this in the Matteini court transcript? It is a significant piece of evidence to show the ECHR that the arrest was motivated by bad faith. The implication is that the interrogation and arrest (which had its given reasons - the "reasonable suspicion" details - dependent of the statements from the interrogation) were conducted based on the scheduled arrival of a family member who one presumes could help Amanda get a lawyer.

Hi Numbers,
this is from Perugia Shock, here's the link:
http://web.archive.org/web/20101015182653/http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2008_06_01_archive.html
which was reporting of a courtroom showdown with Judge Matteini and Miss Knox in 2 blog posts on June 4, 2008 and June 8, 2008 titled Fight for the Freedom:

Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Fight for the Freedom 1

"I'm grateful to jail because it is saving my life."
This is how Sonya Caleffi --the angel of death, who was found guilty of 5 of the 18 homicides she allegedly committed in 4 months -- speaks of her detention today.
And this is the real function of jail, redeeming people. Or holding them while awaiting trial. Amanda Knox belongs to the second category and must be not that "grateful," but at least she's using her detention in the right way.
Reliable sources from Capanne Penitentiary, indeed, explain that Amanda is spending most of her time studying languages. Italian, but also German, Russian, Chinese and Japanese. Yes, Amanda is studying all these languages at the same time! Getting ready for her future multi-country press conferences.
In the meantime, the inspector Tommaso D'Emilio of the Foreign Office of the Police Station was arrested in Perugia yesterday on suspicion of corruption. You see, Amanda? No drama, everyone gets to enjoy a stay at the Grand Hotel sooner or later. Even them.

Anyway, we'll probably have more details from Capanne soon. But for now, we have to get technical again. The blog has been following live the battle for freedom between Amanda's defense and GIP Claudia Matteini. Now we can begin to analyze their actual 'dialogue'.
Also, there's no longer any reason not to publish the name of the community where Amanda was supposed to go for house arrest. Actually there's a reason to publish it because it is a really excellent place for those who need to detoxify or who want to help: Comunità Caritas 'Il Casolare' of Don Lucio Gatti, located in Muffa of San Fatucchio (phone 0759680166).

Amanda vs Claudia
Part 1 - The 'confessions' and the 'memoir'

Amanda
First, recall that after the facts of November 1, 2007 I was heard 3 times and then, on November 6 alone, twice. The last time lasted more than 13 hours and led me to a state of extreme exhaustion.
Because I was certain of my non-involvement in the crime, I fell into a state of depression which may be irreversible.
Below, I propose new elements of assessment.

-In accusing me, my two depositions of November 6 were used. I have always asked that they not be admitted.
And these have been deemed non admissible against me by the Supreme Court.
This decision shows that the entire accusatory theory is wrong and that it was built on violations of the law. The proof discovered in this way led to monstrous clues and created a false trail with grave damage to me.

-The Court of Freedom, repeating the arguments of the Prosecution, based its thesis on a presumed "confession" which was included in the documentation.
And the documentation is those two interrogations, which can't be used, and the memoir.


When such documentation is excluded, the entire accusation against me must be reviewed.

Claudia
Your request that the cautionary measure be canceled or substituted with house arrest at the Caritas Community is admissible only if you submit new elements. For this reason, we can start excluding any examination of the two statements.
The judgment expressed by Supreme Court, that they are not admissible against you, does not change the probatory picture since the Supreme Court has taken them into account anyway, even in the sentences about Sollecito and Guede.
That is why we can't describe it as a new element of evaluation since the Supreme Court excluded any illegitimacy and confirmed the measures.
In addition, recall that in the original ruling by the GIP [in this case Claudia Matteini] issued on November 9, the statements made at 5.45 am on November 6 were not used and nevertheless the Gip ruled that there were serious clues of guilt.
Because other investigative results were later revealed; the two statements lost all their importance; and for the purpose of canceling the cautionary measure they are totally irrelevant, as has already been ruled.

Amanda
-The so-called "memoir" was itself a defensive statement written to explain the "confessions." It was admitted only through Article 237 CPP ['documents from a suspect can be admitted'], but it has only the same value as the previous statements. It was made at the same time and in the same place; if the other two statements are not admissible then neither is the memoir.

The events and threatening outcomes put me in a state of anguish and terror; this written statement is merely the expression of it.

-And let's not forget my education and my dreamy nature, which was exacerbated by the use of psychotropic substances.

-It was just an imaginary delirium that I fantasized in an attempt to get out of an extremely difficult situation.

Immature individuals, under the weight of acute fear, can have a defensive reaction of this type and create fantasy visions.
What made this possible was that it was implied that if I signed such an accusatory document I would be released. For these reasons, the so-called memoir reflects only my state of confusion and torment and we cannot define it as being certain, unambiguous and serious as the law requires for it to be a serious clue of guilt.


Claudia
The reasons that led you to write the memoir, as you explain them now, lack substance, because the only thing that counts for the purpose of using it for the process is that it comes from the suspect. And it was deliberately written by the suspect, so any violation of defensive rights is excluded.
There are no doubts as to whether this document was delivered spontaneously to the police. Indeed, on November 7 the director of the House of Detention writes that you spontaneously delivered to the Vice-Commander of your section two manuscript sheets, which were about the memoir.
Finally, looking at the content of the memoir itself, we must admit that its content is very careful. It is certainly not "a fantastic and imaginary delirium."

To be continued...

* * *


Sunday, June 8, 2008
Fight for the Freedom 2
The Great Inquisitor

After the dispute about the interrogations, let's look at some of the elements that the defense considers to be new and potentially in contrast with the "probatory picture" acquired until the Supreme Court ruling.

After this only the dispute about the knife remains to be seen, and that will have to wait for another occasion. But for now, enjoy merciless Claudia at her very merciless best.

Part 3- The probatory incident on Knox's computer

Amanda
On January 21, 2008 Your Honor appointed an expert to retrieve all data from the hard drives; to create a clone of the single hard drive; and to assess all useful circumstances and determine the reason for the blockage that occurred.
The contents of the hard drive of my computer (as well as those of the other suspects) were not recovered.

Further data could be recovered if the manufacturer Toshiba were appointed, and I would request this because the data in question will further support my claim of non-involvement in any illegal activity.


Claudia
First of all, the test on your computer determined nothing --either in your favor or against you-- because the hard drive could not be recovered.

And the test did not yield an exact reason for the damage, although it is probable that it is attributable to an error in handling, as any intentional act is excluded.
Obviously, we are facing a totally neutral element with regard to the probatory picture, which therefore remains unchanged.

Part 4- Precautionary custody


Amanda
1-I would ask Your Honor to consider the following circumstance, already acquired but never examined in particular. The Court of Freedom concluded that the precautionary measure was necessary in my case due to the possibility of tampering with evidence, flight and repetition of the alleged crimes, while "awaiting the process of acquiring a more conscious maturity."

So it is a question of waiting for my 'maturity'.

Obviously this can't be the real reason. Once again the real reason is hidden and this masquerade is a serious sickness of the judicial system that recent jurisprudence has sharply criticized and seeks to remedy because of the damage it has caused.

2-Depriving a suspect of liberty and thereby causing suffering can never be a good way to obtain clues or statements. Statements obtained in this manner are fundamentally flawed at the core.
It is well known that this kind of pressure has resulted in some tragic end results. Preventive incarceration imposed with the expectation of 'maturity' suggests a future prize when the suspect releases information useful to the prosecution. And this method is not acceptable under the Italian judicial system as it is described in the Constitution.

3-However, before considering this deduction, a constitutional presumption of innocence must always apply at each stage of the judicial process.

This situation, which has been going on for 7 months, appears to be a 'punishment' for me and not a precaution as set forth by law to ensure that an investigation can proceed.

4-I am a young foreign student in Italy, with no criminal record whatsoever. I have the typical ingenuousness of individuals raised in an anglo-saxon culture (as the documents deemed non-admissible by the Supreme Court prove). Preventive detention is causing serious harm to my health and deep periods of depression.

5-Your Honor should consider my sincere behavior after the terrible occurence of Meredith's death and whether this is the behavior of a guilty person:

I-Going the morning after the crime to the house to take a shower, wash my hair and take a mop to soak up some water at Raffaele's house.

II-Immediatey giving the Authority all details, which were totally precise:
Front door open, Meredith's door closed, blood stains in the bathroom, fecal matter in the toilet of the bigger bathroom.
III-Spontaneously accompanying Raffaele and responding myself to the request to go to the Police Station four times.
IV-But, in particular, couldn't I have left the country?


Is this the behavior one would expect of a person suspected of such a serious crime?

6-As of today, this situation has lasted more than 6 months. Obviously, the fundamental investigative elements have been gathered. The analyses, the technical tests, and the probatory incidents are over. We are just waiting for another result from Scientifica on May 6.

Prolonging my suffering is only justifiable if there is a compelling reason to do so. Since the investigative picture is complete, there is no further reason to continue denying the request for freedom of a subject who is constitutionally presumed to be innocent.

For these reasons, I file a motion that the precautionary measure be revoked.

As a secondary issue, I ask that it be attenuated by granting me house arrest at the Il Casolare Community.


Claudia
No new fact has emerged to justify the revocation of custody as per paragraph 1 of Article 299 cpp.

The same can be said for the request that the measure be attenuated through house arrest status on the grounds that it is no longer proportionate to the facts and the potential penalty (paragraph 2 of Article 299).

Let's analyze the reasons that could justify attenuation. The mere amount of time that has passed since incarceration began is not in and of itself a reason. It may be considered, but only together with new elements (S.C.2001,2006) which, for the time being, do not appear to be present.

As for tampering with the investigation, although the investigation has gone ahead, there is still a risk that you could contact people who have already made depositions, in particular the girlfriends, for the purpose of asking them to change their version. And their statements are important.

As for the danger of criminal repetition, we must say that from Article 133 cp we can deduce that this includes the way in which the fact occurred and its seriousness.
The homicide of Meredith was certainly not an impulsive act. On the contrary, all of the small wounds with the last fatal one demonstrate cold calculation within the context of pre-planned conduct, the characteristics of which are clear signs of perversion demonstrated by a 'strange' enjoyment of her suffering.
Meredith was a girl full of life and enthusiasm, who --for the sole purpose of having some pleasure and sensation during a boring day spent smoking joints-- was subject to acts of brutality and cruelty that are disgusting to any normal person.
In such a situation the danger of repetition of the crime is certainly very high and can't be considered to have diminished due to the mere passage of time, during which -- as a reminder -- you have never shown any sign of remorse or reconsideration of your life.

Even the behaviors you mention in your motion requesting release, which are presented as being in your favor, could be read differently in the opinion of this judge [Matteini]:
your conduct after the murder is symptomatic of a personality which, considering your young age, provokes no small measure of dismay and apprehension, considering how extremely easy it was for you to control your states of mind.
You, together with Raffaele, were able to pretend to have called 112 faced with the accidental arrival of the Police, in order to build yourselves an 'alibi'. This was cold and rational behavior, not at all consistent with the state of stress you say you were feeling because you had found this strange situation at home.
Your stress is not really credible if, as you say, on the same morning of November 2, you came back home after having spent the night with Sollecito and, although you were aware of the situation, took a shower, washed your hair, changed your clothes and went back to his house and then -- only after many hours -- sounded the alarm with this 'famous' call to 112.

As for the flight risk, it is still present. Your family lives in the United States, so it would be extremely easy for you to leave the country. The fact that you did not do so before you were arrested is totally irrelevant. We must remind you that your arrest was made very early, and was effected purposely before the arrival of your mother in order to avoid just such a possibility.
In consideration of the aforementioned, today the only measure that ensures the precautionary requirement is continued precautionary custody in jail.
Even house arrest at such a qualified community is not suitable for you. Not only would the community not allow for continuous control over you, which is necessary, but the structure in question works on the basis of the capacity for self-determination of the individual, and the desire to reconsider the past to start on a new life path in a spirit of reeducation. None of these elements seem to exist in your case.

So, your request must be denied and custody in jail confirmed.

 

[Grinder]

Originally Posted by Grinder View Post
yes we all know that it criminal to beat a person during an interview or actually anytime. that's not what we were talking about. the statement 1:45 was fine (not including the slaps) but couldn't be used against as she was a person with knowledge according to ILE and not a suspect.

I maintain they had plenty of things to make her a suspect before the interrogation but you dispute that and in effect take the argument of the PLE that she only became a suspect after making the statement.

Grinder,
Sadly, your entire statement is incorrect.

So it is legal to beat a person during an interview? I don't think you have expressed yourself well.

I welcome your adversarial or Socratic approach (if it is that), but you do need to keep the terminology somewhat defined and precise. Also, be careful in what you are attributing to me in terms of my argument.

I think it is you that is imprecise and off topic. What again is your special knowledge of Italian law?

I will address your last paragraph first. It is important to distinguish "being a considered a suspect" from "being a suspect under reasonable suspicion". I have indicated that the police considered Amanda a suspect early - at least from Nov. 3, because they needed time to organize the all-night interrogation where they planned to allow themselves to do ILLEGAL things without recording anything.

I hardly think they needed days to organize and I doubt they went into all this with the intent of an ILLEGAL interview.

They may well have decided to "suspect" her on November 2 because the police and/or Mignini concluded - without reliable evidence - that the break-in was staged. Or maybe because she was consoled by a kiss from Raffaele and this image was captured and publicized. Or maybe because she was an attractive young American woman who fit into Mignini's obsessions. But I am not a mind-reader and cannot therefore be precise about all the details of the police/prosecution motivations.

I doubt the kiss had any significant effect but I'm sure RW will come with a quote from Napoleoni.

So Amanda, IMO, was a suspect, whether in good or bad faith, to the police PRIOR to the beginning of the Nov. 5, 2007 interrogation. The REASONABLE SUSPICION for her arrest was primarily generated by the ILLEGAL procedures of that interrogation.

No they wrote up the arrest document in away to deflect a charge that she was a suspect when the interrogation started. Had they written the truth of all the reasons they suspected her from early on it would have been clear the entire fruits would be thrown out as being improper.

The remaining details of the reasonable suspicion were irrelevant details, such as turning off of a cell phone, or simply incorrect. The arrest of AK, RS, and PL was illegal and a violation of the Convention because the reasonable suspicion was invalid and generated in bad faith by illegal methods.

Which doesn't negate the central aspect of my position which is it wasn't unreasonable for them to arrest them that night. It may not have been following procedure or even illegal but not unreasonable considering what they thought to be true.

 

[anglolawyer]

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.

I am only half agreeing. I agree she was a suspect but I disagree that the police/Mignini were acting reasonably either in considering her to be one or in questioning their assumptions (assuming they did that, which is far from clear).

It has long been my opinion (not just mine) that the PGPs and the ILE alike hold two irreconcilable positions simultaneously: that she was suspicious but not a suspect.

 

[anglolawyer]

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?

Is it demonstrated that Filomena retained professional representation to advise her in her dealings with the police about the murder? Or was the advice just about mundane things like the tenancy and release of property? Whichever, having seen what happened in this case nobody should ever go to or remain in Italy above one minute without a lawyer on tap