Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Chris_Halkides]

Meredith's door and fingerprints

Do you have a citation that "only Mez had the key"?

Are you claiming Mez locked the door herself?

How did Amanda know her door was locked if neither she nor Raf tried the door handle, as neither of their fingerprints were found. Do you think perhaps, they were wearing gloves?

Vixen,

Raffaele's fingerprints were found on the door (maybe not the handle). The PG "Wiki" has a fingerprint map. IIRC the forensic police did not test for DNA on the handle. Not sure whether or not they checked for fingerprints there.
EDT
I see that Bill addressed one of these points.

 

[Grinder]

Do you have a citation that "only Mez had the key"?

Are you claiming Mez locked the door herself?

How did Amanda know her door was locked if neither she nor Raf tried the door handle, as neither of their fingerprints were found. Do you think perhaps, they were wearing gloves?

Go look yourself. It is one of the most widely agreed on facts of the case. Both the PGP and PIP agree on this.

Right, I'm claiming Mez committed suicide after locking herself in her room.

They tried the door as Raf attempted to break it down. Later the police broke it down compromising any prints.

I suggest you read the PIP and the PGP Wikis.

 

[Grinder]

The outside door handle was never tested. The PLE testified that it was not tested because it was not part of the crimescene.

Let that roll in your head for a second to consider the way this was investigated.

Stop interrupting my victim Vixen convos

 

[LondonJohn]

Bill, I do not get it. If Hellmann had no faith in the calunnia charge and, like the parents, believed in improper police conduct, then he had a duty to say so in his judgment.

ISTM you are second-guessing what went on in his mind. You are saying he must have thought this, that or the other, but if he did not say so how can you possibly know?

The other possiblity is that he upheld the calunnia charge because he was satisfied with the evidence. If he is scared of the police, why acquit at all?

I'd argue that for Hellmann there was a huge difference between acquitting on the murder charges and acquitting on the criminal slander charge. For the former, he could postulate that the police and PM acted properly and fairly, but that there simply was no good evidence of Knox's/Sollecito's participation in the murder.

For the latter, however, it would actively require Hellmann to conclude that the police (and PM subsequently) had acted unlawfully (and maybe even illegally) on the 5th/6th November 2007, and that in addition they had perjured themselves in court.

I personally find it entirely feasible that Hellmann couldn't bring himself to make these implicit accusations of serious malpractice and conspiracy to commit perjury among the police and PM. Whether that was because he himself found that impossible to believe, or because he believed it but realised that such a grave implication might have serious repercussions for him, we might never know. However, I'd say that Hellmann himself has given a clue to what he believes in his more recent statements to the effect that he now believes Knox should have been acquitted on the criminal slander charge.

 

[Kauffer]

Help me here. Is the issue, then, that she's a suspect as soon as she is openly accused of lying - bearing false witness?

Is the issue that she's suspected of "something", even if not at that early time the murder itself?

If this is so, the last hangers on, haven't moved/learned much all these years. "She knows something she's not telling us."

We have to let the evidence guide us. I would argue that her procedural rights attached no later than at the point the investigation concluded that the burglary was staged and the ingress to the property (if Kercher hadn't opened the door herself) must have been via the locked front door opened by key, AND, if we are being generous to the police, that all key holders except Amanda had alibis, in the sense that they were, unlike Amanda, considerably more than a ten minute walk way.

So that takes us to no later probably than perhaps part way through the 3rd. It's difficult to argue convincingly, despite what investigators were thinking, that suspicion was quite coherent enough to demand attachment of rights on the 2nd. But certainly they attach before the police openly ask her on the 4th if she's lying to them and warn her she will be in trouble if she is. Nobody else was getting this hostility.

It is apparent, however, that even after they arrested her on the 6th, they were not clear what role Amanda had played in the murder, but, minimally, she was thought to be criminally culpable in connection with it at some time during the 3rd. The ECHR talks of rights being "practical and effective" in connection with the provision of advice from counsel. So, the early conclusion that the burglary was fake, that murder was the first crime committed on the night if the 1st and that it was an "inside job" demanded counsel be in place early. It would have saved her.

But when did the police conclude that there were multiple attackers?

 

[Grinder]

I'd argue that for Hellmann there was a huge difference between acquitting on the murder charges and acquitting on the criminal slander charge. For the former, he could postulate that the police and PM acted properly and fairly, but that there simply was no good evidence of Knox's/Sollecito's participation in the murder.

For the latter, however, it would actively require Hellmann to conclude that the police (and PM subsequently) had acted unlawfully (and maybe even illegally) on the 5th/6th November 2007, and that in addition they had perjured themselves in court.

I personally find it entirely feasible that Hellmann couldn't bring himself to make these implicit accusations of serious malpractice and conspiracy to commit perjury among the police and PM. Whether that was because he himself found that impossible to believe, or because he believed it but realised that such a grave implication might have serious repercussions for him, we might never know. However, I'd say that Hellmann himself has given a clue to what he believes in his more recent statements to the effect that he now believes Knox should have been acquitted on the criminal slander charge.

We may never know. I think that he was protecting both the cops and the purse. He could have ruled that she was obviously stressed and that she spoke only to relieve that stress and the police hadn't done anything improper IMO. Or maybe Bill hit it with the other judges.

It certainly was odd at the time as there was no logical reason for her to frame PL if she had no involvement.

 

[Kauffer]

Of course she was a suspect from the beginning as one of the people that discovered the crime scene. As time went by other people were eliminated and the police had things that they believed tied the kids to the crime. Their investigators believed the break in was staged. The 911 call seemed strange to them, particularly the "nothing was taken" remark. A some point they thought the bloody shoe prints matched Raf's. They most likely knew Amanda received a text a crucial time but she never mentioned it during the hours of interviews. In those interviews the kids weren't completely consistent about the evening. (Something that I would think would reduce suspicion as they didn't plan a spiel).

I'm probably leaving out many things that added to the suspicion. With everything they thought they had, under Italian law (please no references to ECHR to disprove or in anyway address this point) until they declare a person an official suspect that person isn't entitled to suspect protections. This may well violate what should be.
That night the unofficial suspect is in the station hands over her phone and they find the response to PL and now they are sure and start questioning. From their perspective when she finally stops lying and tells of events with PL they have an involvementor suspect and her status changes.

They had reasonable cause for arrest and their judges upheld it. Obviously much of their facts were in the end shown to be erroneous. At this point I'll mention the thousands of hair identifications here that turned out be total junk science that not only arrests but convictions were based on. So now those arrests and convictions that seemed reasonable and even guilty BARD are in doubt.

Having said the above, the police shouldn't have used the Reid technique and should be held accountable and the use of it should be made a criminal act.

The point a lot of people don't seem to get is that the ECHR, through the jurisprudence of the court, IS the law in Italy. One of the problems that exists is that whereas there is direction in place from the constitutional court to all the other courts in Italy to interpret Italian law in compliance with the convention, this direction does not appear to have affected investigations. The whole witness/suspect delineation needs urgent attention. There are constitutional implications.

 

[Kauffer]

The outside door handle was never tested. The PLE testified that it was not tested because it was not part of the crimescene.

Let that roll in your head for a second to consider the way this was investigated.

On a slightly unrelated matter, I have always thought it rather surprising that Amanda's DNA was not found in Meredith's room given that they shared a bathroom for some weeks and we might have expected some transfer or direct deposit.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

casual DNA deposition

On a slightly unrelated matter, I have always thought it rather surprising that Amanda's DNA was not found in Meredith's room given that they shared a bathroom for some weeks and we might have expected some transfer or direct deposit.

Kauffer,

Yes, it would not have been surprising to find it. Probably some was there, and they just did not happen to sample it. Great post earlier today.

 

[Numbers]

Numbers

You said:

'The point I tried to make - and no doubt not well enough - is that a person becomes a suspect in the ECHR human-rights view when that person is in the custody of police and is being interrogated: asked questions or otherwise treated in a way to induce self-incriminating or (in some situations) other-incriminating answers.'

If this is indeed how the ECHR classifies suspects then it seems to me wooly-headed. A person becomes a suspect as soon as they are suspected, due not to the laws of the land but those of grammar. OTOH the rights triggered by suspect status only kick in when the suspect is at risk of unfairness, most obviously when detained and when subject to questioning.

Thus, Amanda was a suspect more or less at once but her rights were not infringed until the night of 5th-6th Nov (I ignore rights of privacy, to family life etc and the like)

I continue to wonder where in this conversation the point you are labouring to make fits.

.
Grinder posted:
"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."

I think Numbers believes, and I agree, that without using the illegally (substitute a more appropriate word if you please) obtained obliquely incriminating witness statement from Amanda, the police did not have a reasonable reason, in other words sufficient evidence, to arrest either Raffaele or Amanda.

Grinder hedges by saying 'considering what they thought to be true', which in my opinion is irrelevant, since the courts should be more discerning than to blindly accept what the police 'think to be true'.

Cody
.

We tend to look at this case with the benefit of hindsight. And, so, since Amanda incriminated herself on the 5th and 6th interrogation night, we consider the effects of her treatment from when she arrived at the questura that night and whether her procedural rights attached at the moment her final interrogation began or somewhat later.

And yet it is clear her procedural rights attached days earlier. As you point out Amanda was a suspect "more or less at once". And not merely because the investigation was at an early stage and in some sense it could be said that "everyone is a suspect". That she was meaningfully a suspect is demonstrated by Ficcara and Mignini's statements on the subject.

She underwent approximately 40 hours of questioning prior to the 5th and was not simply "at risk of unfairness" but actually treated unfairly. She was required to attend the questura, subjected to lengthy interrogation, such interrogation being hostile in nature. On the 4th November, she was subjected to an eight hour session and as she relates in a bugged conversation with Annie Fuller on the 5th:

"It’s a little frustrating because... that is, they are very stressed and become more impatient with me and then... yesterday it’s been very difficult because when I went to the Police Station they questioned me and when I tried to reply they were telling me: " Are you’re lying? Are you sure you’re not lying? Because if you’re lying you are getting yourself in big trouble", and I: "I’m not lying, I’m trying to help you", you know? It bothered me, but at the same time when they brought me... There, they brought me home again and they asked me to examine all the knives to see if any were missing and just the fact of being there (in the house) frightened me to death, not to speak of having to browse through all the knives..."

Tragically, the unsullied, naiive and inexperienced Amanda lacks the radar that would have guided her straight to a lawyer's office. Yet, her rights are clearly enunciated in Salduz:

" n order for the right to a fair trial to remain sufficiently “practical and effective” ..., Article 6 § 1 [of the Convention] requires that, as a rule, access to a lawyer should be provided as from the first interrogation of a suspect by the police,unless it is demonstrated in the light of the particular circumstances of each case that there are compelling reasons to restrict this right. Even where compelling reasons may exceptionally justify denial of access to a lawyer, such restriction – whatever its justification – must not unduly prejudice the rights of the accused under Article 6 ... The rights of the defence will in principle be irretrievably prejudiced when incriminating statements made during police interrogation without access to a lawyer are used for a conviction.” (Salduz v. Turkey, Grand Chamber judgment of 27 November 2008, § 55)."

That Amanda did not incriminate herself before the 5th November deflects us from paying much attention to her treatment between the 2nd and 5th November when she was being softened up and broken down. Yet, not only would the early presence of a lawyer have protected Amanda for that period of time, it would have ensured that the interrogations of 5/6 November did not take place and arguably would have re-railed a derailed investigation.

Kauffer

On reflection, I agree with you. Since she was a suspect more or less from the off, she was entitled to receive a caution, access to a lawyer etc well before the 5th. Obvious really and stupid of me to miss it.

Thank you.

anglo,

{Bold emphasis added to quotes.}

The point is the ECHR "operational definition" of suspect, as suggested in Kauffer's quote from Salduz v Turkey. Thus, someone arbitrarily dragged in for an "interrogation" (as was, perhaps, Salduz - he may simply have been a bystander when a political demonstration took place near where he was walking) is a suspect. There is no legal formalism from the police required to make that person a suspect, and it does not matter whether a rational, reasonable, and/or objective person who upholds due process would view the person as a suspect.

Amanda Knox was probably a suspect as soon as she was observed by the police on Nov. 2, as I far as I know. If one examines Giobbi's testimony (I have read it in Google translation), he states the police concentrated on Meredith's flat mates and the boys downstairs immediately. Amanda did not have as strong an alibi as the others. Later in his testimony he states that she became a person of special investigative interest because (in his perception) she wiggled her hips and said "voila" when putting on shoe covers before entering the cottage.

While some on ISF believe or state that the police perceived the break-in as staged and therefore the police concluded that someone with a key was part of the crime, my belief is that the process goes the other way. That is, the police assumed that the crime was committed by or with the help of someone with a key - namely, Amanda Knox - and therefore the break-in was staged. Giobbi did state in his testimony that he observed glass fragments on top of jumbled clothes, but to my limited knowledge, photographic evidence shows that the glass fragments are (perhaps with a few exceptions[?]) under the clothes. The one or two unsupervised visits of Filomena to her room when it was a crime scene, and thus compromising the evidence, with the permission of the police, were not discussed in Giobbi's testimony. In my view, Giobbi's talk of "behavioral" signs of guilt may be merely his cover-up of the arbitrary nature of the police actions.

I don't dispute that the police should have cautioned Amanda earlier if their earlier "interviews" of her may be regarded as "interrogations". It does seem to me, with my limited knowledge of ECHR case-law, that the "first interrogation" is one where the police make an effort to induce someone (whether or not previously suspect to an ISF poster's satisfaction) to make an incriminating statement. It may or may not be sufficient to simply tell the "interviewed" person that he or she will be in trouble if lying, but for the police to allow the person to go home. I will let the ECHR decide whether or not that was an "interrogation".

ETA: Yes, in hindsight Amanda should have sought a lawyer after the interview in which the police warned her she would be in trouble if lying. But she was a very trusting and naive 20-year-old American apparently trying to establish herself as an independent adult, so she did not. It was the obligation of the police and judicial authorities, according to Italian law and the ECHR case-law (which is the supreme human rights law in Italy and other CoE States) to have provided her with counsel as of the first interrogation.

 

[Vixen]

Go look yourself. It is one of the most widely agreed on facts of the case. Both the PGP and PIP agree on this.

Right, I'm claiming Mez committed suicide after locking herself in her room.

They tried the door as Raf attempted to break it down. Later the police broke it down compromising any prints.

I suggest you read the
PIP and PGP

From PGP. This is what Luca Altieri said. He was the one who broke down the door:

[excerpt]
Yes. Then later we also went out to realize how it was possible to get that window. It was not ... to me it seemed something quite unlikely to get that window, and because there was no access, that is not a circus acrobat would be able to climb the wall with a stone, break the glass and open it ... is my impression. And nothing, then after, inside the house, basically, we have seen that these two policemen post new arrivals were there to deliver two phones that had been found in a house, I did not understand what was this dynamic, however, were here with these two phones of English girl who lived one of the rooms of the house. We also saw that the door of the room of this girl was locked from the outside probably because there was the key behind the door. So we ... I myself have asked the two boys if it were normal, say, he used to close the door, that is, if it was normal that the door was locked. Raffaele, translating the response of Amanda, told me that he used to close the door even when she went to the bathroom to take a shower.
GM:
Meredith?
LA:
Yes. So there and then, so it is not born a concern with respect to the fact that the door was closed despite the theft even if it had been discovered these phones. After it is coming up with Paola Filomena after a while '. [excerpt ends]

---IOW he says it was apparent it was closed from the outside because "there was the key behind the door".


Marco Zaroli testified:

[excerpt]
I think it was one of the agents of the post that we said it, then and there was one thing ... since they had also found these phones, the thing that worried enough, however, since the response was that of Amanda Meredith was used, customary shut the room just to make a simple shower there tranquillizzammo enough.
GM:
Given the observation of ... in front of the comment of the Postal Police, one of the members of the police post, there was a locked door ..?
MZ:
No, at the express request of Luke, I asked him to Luke, "but ask him how ..."
GCM:
Here, excuse me a moment, that is what, if can be concluded. So, Luke, what does?
MZ:
If Meredith was normal ... if it was normal that Meredith's door was locked. The answer is "yes, it's normal, it also closes to go take a shower." So given that there was not at home and could have gone to the grocery store, we tranquillizzammo because it was plausible that the door was closed.
GCM:
The door was closed those who have discovered the first ?,
MZ:
I do not know, I've already ...
GM:
I have told the police ...
MZ:
Yes, we had already said, and had apparently already discovered.
GM:
In practice it is discovered by someone, the Postal Police takes note that there is a door, a closed chamber.
MZ:
Yes.
GM:
Everyone is wondering what could be there, Luke asks, Luke, if I understand, but Amanda asks why the door ..?
FM no Amanda:
{{{2}}}
GM:
O Amand asks ...
GCM:
Excuse me, then, yes, we hear. You're welcome.
MZ:
I remember that I asked Luke: "Luke, just ask the ..."
GCM:
She asked Luca?
MZ:
Yes. I said, "Listen ...", because at that time I remember I was talking Battistelli, "but feel a bit '' is the door" because we were worried of the situation.
GCM:
One moment, sorry. Yes.
MZ:
I asked and was told, again by Luke, that Amanda had said that it was normal that the door was cKIussT. '
GCM:
Here you are. Excuse me, perhaps to conclude on this, but ...
MZ:
Why, because the closed well to make a simple shower. [excerpt ends]

Filomena Romanelli testifies:

[excerpt]

She closed her door the key?
FR:
I did not have the key.
GM:
It was just her, or even other did not have the key?
FR:
I did not have the key, Laura and Meredith had the key, I do not remember if the room of Amanda, but I do not think so, I do not remember.
GM:
Senta but these rooms were left, during the day were left open or were closed, apart from her that she had no key so ...
FR:
Most were left open.
GM:
Were all open?
FR:
Yes.
GM:
Always open?
FR:
Yes. It seems to me that only once Laura Mezzetti going away for the weekend closed the room but because, he said, but this is not because I am reminded, however, I only know Laura Mazzetti.
GM:
And Meredith as he held the door, her room, the door ...
FR:
Open.
GM:
Always open. Feel the night ...
GCM:
When he says Excuse open means open not closed key?
FR:
Not locked.
GCM:
Or the door wide open?
FR:
Not locked.
GCM:
Closed ...
FR:
Not always closed, maybe sometimes pulled but not, say not closed, resting, but never unlocked, ajar, but never locked.[excerpt ends]

So, having acquainted myself with the facts from the webpages you suggested, it is clear when Amanda said Mez's door was always closed or locked, everybody else emphatically said this was not so.

Why did Amanda say she was supposedly frantically worried about Mez's locked door in her email home, before she was a suspect, yet Inspector Battistelli found her remarkably laid back about the door being closed?

[excerpt]

i then went into
the part of the house that meredith and i share and checked my room
for things missing, which there werent. then i knocked on merediths
room.

at first i thought she was alseep so i knocked gently, but when she
didnt respond i knocked louder and louder until i was really banging
on her door and shouting her name. no response. panicing, i ran out
onto our terrace to see if maybe i could see over the ledge into her
room from the window, but i couldnt see in. bad angle. [excerpt ends]


(Sorry, google translation.)

 

[Vixen]

I'd argue that for Hellmann there was a huge difference between acquitting on the murder charges and acquitting on the criminal slander charge. For the former, he could postulate that the police and PM acted properly and fairly, but that there simply was no good evidence of Knox's/Sollecito's participation in the murder.

For the latter, however, it would actively require Hellmann to conclude that the police (and PM subsequently) had acted unlawfully (and maybe even illegally) on the 5th/6th November 2007, and that in addition they had perjured themselves in court.

I personally find it entirely feasible that Hellmann couldn't bring himself to make these implicit accusations of serious malpractice and conspiracy to commit perjury among the police and PM. Whether that was because he himself found that impossible to believe, or because he believed it but realised that such a grave implication might have serious repercussions for him, we might never know. However, I'd say that Hellmann himself has given a clue to what he believes in his more recent statements to the effect that he now believes Knox should have been acquitted on the criminal slander charge.

With the greatest of respect, how much senior experience of criminal law did Hellmann have, as he was harshly criticised for his motiviations when it went to SC?

It could be he was out of his depth.

 

[js202]

With the greatest of respect, how much senior experience of criminal law did Hellmann have, as he was harshly criticised for his motiviations when it went to SC?

It could be he was out of his depth.

Hellmann was "harshly criticized" by a) corrupt and incompetent members of an essentially unfettered institution, structured so that it had no guidance or answerability to anyone but itself; and b) a gaggle of anonymous online nutjobs whose reasoning abilities demonstrated the sophistication, and reliance upon coincidence and convenience, of the average 3 year old.

To the extent that Hellmann's reasoning was seconded by unbiased experts - sincerely flummoxed and nonplussed by the absurdity of the "case" against Knox and Sollecito - the likes of John Douglas, Peter Gill and Bruce Budowle, yes, he was out of his depth.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Some criticisms say more about the person uttering them

With the greatest of respect, how much senior experience of criminal law did Hellmann have, as he was harshly criticised for his motiviations when it went to SC?

It could be he was out of his depth.

When the SCC criticized Hellmann on matters of DNA and blood forensics, they paraded their ignorance of the subjects; his grasp of forensics was much better.

 

[Bill Williams]

Go look yourself. It is one of the most widely agreed on facts of the case. Both the PGP and PIP agree on this.

Right, I'm claiming Mez committed suicide after locking herself in her room.

They tried the door as Raf attempted to break it down. Later the police broke it down compromising any prints.

I suggest you read the PIP and the PGP Wikis.

As tempted as I am to go all Grinder on Grinder himself, and demand that Grinder provide a cite......

..... it is true, this is one of the uncontested facts of the case.

With all due respect to Vixen, at this late date these sorts of speculations are simply non-productive.

Vixen wondered if the reason why neither AK nor RS's forensics were found on the outside door handle was:"Maybe they were wearing gloves."

The time for "maybes" has long since passed. This one is an investigative question - which if not settled by the police within (say) six months, is not worth speculating about - a month after their complete exoneration!

There are no meaningful "maybes" left. They've all long since been answered. In the case of no forensics found on the outside door-handle the answer has long since been known: the PLE did not consider the doorhandle part of the crimescene. They never tested it. That's what the PLE said!

The only point to ask these "maybe" questions is because of a misguided belief that either AK or RS **could** have been involved in this crime. As to their involvement, this was answered by Judge Hellmann in 2011 who said they were not. Everything since then (Chieffi, Nencini) has been the consideration of "judicially generated facts".

That's a great phrase - "judicially generated facts". I can't remember the poster upthread who coined it; but the most basic of judicially-generated facts is the meme that there must have been more than one attacker.

The forensics on this point (as per the Massei trial) says that the vast majority of experts never did rule out single-attcker. Yet the Rudi trial generated a "judicial fact" uncontested by both Rudi (the defence) and Mignini (the prosecutor) - generated at a fast-track trial where the evidence phase is missing.

Italian courts seem bound to accept judicial facts, regardless of their pedigree. It seems to lock the court system as accepting things as factual, regardless of the evidence.

The long and the short of it - as of March 2015, this is over. Even the judicial facts are now on the side of the evidence: AK and RS had nothing to do with Meredith's horrible murder.

There just is no reasonable reason to trot out maybes at this point.

 

[Grinder]

The point a lot of people don't seem to get is that the ECHR, through the jurisprudence of the court, IS the law in Italy. One of the problems that exists is that whereas there is direction in place from the constitutional court to all the other courts in Italy to interpret Italian law in compliance with the convention, this direction does not appear to have affected investigations. The whole witness/suspect delineation needs urgent attention. There are constitutional implications.

Yes but I doubt the PLE consulted their ECHR handbook. I'm not saying and never have that they followed ECHR law or even Italian law as intended. I'm saying they had reasonable cause to arrest them in their minds and therefore it wasn't a frame job at the time. Was it conforming to Italian or ECHR standards? Most certainly not

 

[Bill Williams]

With the greatest of respect, how much senior experience of criminal law did Hellmann have, as he was harshly criticised for his motiviations when it went to SC?

It could be he was out of his depth.

A lot of things "could be".

However, the Italian Supreme Court has vindicated Hellmann. Out of all the Italian judges who had a crack at this case, it was only Hellmann (and Zanetti) who judged this case on its merits, rather than on the "could be's", or the "maybes".

 

[Bill Williams]

Yes but I doubt the PLE consulted their ECHR handbook. I'm not saying and never have that they followed ECHR law or even Italian law as intended. I'm saying they had reasonable cause to arrest them in their minds and therefore it wasn't a frame job at the time. Was it conforming to Italian or ECHR standards? Most certainly not

How do you know the content of their minds?

 

[Strozzi]

I suspect that heavy-handed police in many countries occasionally deny woman and men access to a restroom to tend to personal matters or personal distress. I wonder if the ECHR has ever addressed a claim where a young woman in police interrogation has ever been denied access to a restroom to address menstrual issues. Will this be regarded by the ECHR as constituting abuse in an interrogation?

ETA: I actually know a businessman who was negotiating contract pricing across the table with a potential customer's buyer. The businessman asked to use the restroom and the buyer's negotiator refused the request, telling him not until we agree on price. My acquaintance, the businessman, walked out. Amanda could not realistically have stood up and walked out of the Questura.

 

[Bill Williams]

Why did Amanda say she was supposedly frantically worried about Mez's locked door in her email home, before she was a suspect, yet Inspector Battistelli found her remarkably laid back about the door being closed?

You will need to ask Battistelli about his motivations for saying what he said.

He also said he had not gone into Meredith's room, even against the evidence of others who said he had.

If Battistelli said Amanda was "remarkable laid back," then so was he. So much so that he, himself, refused Filomena's demand to beak down the door. Filomena was the only one who was NOT "laid back" about this. To everyone else, the scene in front of them was confusing, and NOT indicative of murder inside the room.

Battistelli and Amanda included. I am curious as to why you are now trying to put them on opposite sides of this issue.