Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

Vixen, I note that Amanda was taken into the interrogation room at about 11 pm on Nov 5, 2007. She was interrogated for two hours by several police officers and then at about 1 am police interpreter Anna Donino joined them. None of the police officers spoke much English and Amanda spoke little Italian - she had been in Italy 6 weeks by this time. The interrogation became very nasty. Amanda wrote in her book that she was shouted at, called a liar, told that the police had proof she had been at the cottage even though she knew she was not there. Amanda was threatened that if she didn't tell the truth she would go to prison for 30 years and never see her family again.

Amanda was not at the cottage the night of the murder and insisted on that for more than two hours from 11 pm until after interpreter Anna Donnino arrived at about 1 am. The police did not want to believe Amanda. Twice Amanda was hit by police officer Ficarra to "help her remember".

Donino testified in court that when she arrived at about 1 am the situation was chaotic. Amanda was still insisting that she was not at the cottage when Donino arrived. Donino took it upon herself to try to persuade Amanda that she was there but did not remember it because she was traumatized. The police and police interpreter Donino eventually convinced Amanda that her memory was wrong, causing Amanda to doubt her own memory. They convinced Amanda she was somewhere she was not. They messed with her mInd, drew out answers to leading questions, and created a false accusation.

I believe the police told (implied to) Amanda that the person with whom she exchanged the 'see you later' message (Patrick Lumumba) was the killer. Amanda did not have that thought before late that night. She did not go into the interrogation room on the night of Nov 5 thinking Patrick was involved. She was not afraid of Patrick until far into the police-manipulated construction. The police manipulated the three-hour interrogation to that point and late in the interrogation when Amanda understood what the police were leading to she became terrified of Patrick and essentially hallucinated answers to the police's questions as the lead her through the murder where they claimed she was present.

Mignini in a recently-recorded discussion explains away how the police interrogation led to the police-shaped and extracted accusation against Lumumba. Mignini refers to the 20-year-old American girl astutely manipulating the (noble) police interrogators. He is a sick man.

Please note that for at least two hours in a nasty police interrogation Amanda was ably to hold true. It took the arrival of the police interpreter to convince Amanda she was there but did not remember it because she was traumatized.

I agree that sounds horrifying. However, there was a gruesome murder and the Italian interpretor possibly took it upon herself to become Detective Inspector Closseau for the day.

 

[Vixen]

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.

Battistelli stepped into the room, looked under the duvet and of course he is going to deny it, as he's in trouble otherwise. AIUI the postal police were not allowed to batter down doors.

 

[Vixen]

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".

Excuse me, but it wasn't Hellmann's place to judge the merits of the case. This was already done by Massei. Hellman was supposed to deal with the legal points in the appeal.

 

[Bill Williams]

I agree that sounds horrifying. However, there was a gruesome murder and the Italian interpretor possibly took it upon herself to become Detective Inspector Closseau for the day.

Then you must agree that she played a huge role in pulling this investigation off the rails.

She testified that when she arrived at the interrogation (at12:30 am) that it was already in disarray.Then than testified that she did what she commonly said she did - acted as a mediator between police and the interogatee.

Both Ficara and Knox needed a translator, who is mainly an interpeter. Precision in meaning between two languages was essential, and Donnino failed miserably. Striking is that she did not interpret properly the English idiom "See you later", as it was rendered in Italian. Even as rendered in Italian by Knox, it still had the English meaning behind it, and Donnino was the only one in the room who had the competence to point that out.

Instead she mediated - by her own admission. One of the guilter commentators here on ISF defended her, saying that her basic role at those things was to be a diplomat.

 

[Bill Williams]

Excuse me, but it wasn't Hellmann's place to judge the merits of the case. This was already done by Massei. Hellman was supposed to deal with the legal points in the appeal.

This is wrong. In the Italian three-stage process, both the 1st grade and the 2nd grade trials deal with the merits of evidence. It is the final level, the ISC, which is not supposed to deal with the merits of evidence.

You are thinking of the North American/English model, where the first appeal is as you say. You have it wrong for Italy.

 

[Vixen]

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.

As the Marasca- Bruni (?) court said the acquittal was based on, "insufficient evidence", then I am afraid we are back looking over the merits or "the judicial facts" as you call it. It will be interesting to read the logic.

 

[analemma]

Excuse me, but it wasn't Hellmann's place to judge the merits of the case. This was already done by Massei. Hellman was supposed to deal with the legal points in the appeal.

What are you talking about?

 

[Vixen]

This is wrong. In the Italian three-stage process, both the 1st grade and the 2nd grade trials deal with the merits of evidence. It is the final level, the ISC, which is not supposed to deal with the merits of evidence.

You are thinking of the North American/English model, where the first appeal is as you say. You have it wrong for Italy.

I understand the structure. The Appeal court can look at further evidence, as though it is a continuation of the first trial. There does have to be an agreed set list of issues. Especially when you consider time is extremely limited with typically just one or two days listed for the Appeal.

AIUI If the Appeal court doesn't revisit an issue, then the SC cannot determine on it, as it was not pleaded at the appeal, which is what SC looks at.

 

[RWVBWL]

I have to say, it did strike me as peculiar Amanda should worry about mopping Raf's floor first thing in the morning, as most fun-loving students are not usually that fastidious.

Hi Vixen,
I used to believe that too.
You gotta watch the Crime Scene video from Nov. 16, 2007 where the cops filmed inside Raffaele's apartment.

In case you have not watched it,
well here you go, a tour inside Raff's flat:
https://mega.co.nz/#!O5B1RCbD!sskADAddI-1njo2AEcA0xcAke9LMm-XdnHtn6OHJoXU

Here's a coupla screen grab pix for ya:

That broken pipe under his sink must have been a pain in the ***.
A lot of water must have come outta that sink pipe, yuck, with food particles from cooking and dirty dishes scattered about. And if you were stoned and having' a romantic night off work hangin' out with your new luver of only a week, wouldn't you too wanna clean it up with a mop the next day before leaving town on a fun, romantic day trip thru the countryside to Gubbio?

(I'm a dude,
+ I'd much rather my gal come and smoke out with me and cuddle,
then see her get on her hands + knees and mop up my dirty kitchen floor with towels.)

Check out the pic below.
If you watch the video, 10 days after Raffaele was arrested and imprisoned and put in solitary confinement, his sink was dry, but underneath the sink was wet, still, with water droplets visable right in front of the Ace Bleach.

For some reason I can see Amanda wanting to help keep her new boyfriend - (of a week) -Raff's apartment clean, for heck he wasn't a stoned, surfer-dude type mind you, but a scarf wearing, upper class kinda man who was gonna graduate college in 2 weeks, from what I know...
RW


Hey Vixen,
since you already seem to know a lot about this case we discuss,
I gotta ask - Have you watched any or all of the other Crime Scene videos?

If not,
ISF member Metho's kindly linked them for us awhile back, download, watch and learn:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10276559&postcount=4068

I wonder if you too might get a little mad when you hear the cops laughing as Meredith lay dead inside her bedroom,
raped and murdered by Rudy Guede?

 

[Vixen]

Then you must agree that she played a huge role in pulling this investigation off the rails.

She testified that when she arrived at the interrogation (at12:30 am) that it was already in disarray.Then than testified that she did what she commonly said she did - acted as a mediator between police and the interogatee.

Both Ficara and Knox needed a translator, who is mainly an interpeter. Precision in meaning between two languages was essential, and Donnino failed miserably. Striking is that she did not interpret properly the English idiom "See you later", as it was rendered in Italian. Even as rendered in Italian by Knox, it still had the English meaning behind it, and Donnino was the only one in the room who had the competence to point that out.

Instead she mediated - by her own admission. One of the guilter commentators here on ISF defended her, saying that her basic role at those things was to be a diplomat.

If Donnino was an interpreter and not a cop, she should have stuck to the knitting. In her role as interpreter, then it does mean just that, when interpreting a language, you do not do literal translations, you have to fit the idioms into the other language so that it reads smoothly.

TBH it would have been remiss of Donnino not to pick up on the term, "see you later". I believe the text was in Italian and in the Italian, it literally did infer that there was a planned meeting later. Heck, how are the cops to know Amanda meant, "see you!" as in "goodbye".

 

[Vixen]

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.

Silly question, but did Amanda ASK if she could have a comfort break?

 

[Numbers]

Giobbi may not be correct in certain testimony

....
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.

.../QUOTE]
Just as a further point about Giobbi (and this may go for the other police as well), his testimony at certain points may not be correct and true. It may even constitute perjury (if in a US court).

For example, at one point he is questioned by a defense attorney about the blood in the downstairs flat. Giobbi attributes the blood to a cat. The attorney then asks him about the blood on the light switch. Giobbi says "the cat jumped". (I don't know if this is meant as humor, and whether or not humorous interludes are part of Italian court procedure.)

Giobbi was at the relevant time a high-ranking Italian police officer (rank or title of V.A.Q., apparently equivalent to V.A.Q. Profazio, the Perugia police chief) and an Italian "doctor" (college graduate). He apparently was an important officer of the SCO in Rome; one of the functions of the SCO as explained by Giobbi in his testimony was to assist police Flying Squads in any city or town as needed.

If someone knows what "V.A.Q." means in full in English, I would appreciate the information.

 

[Vixen]

What are you talking about?

Hellmann's acquittal of 2011 based on throwing out witness testimony and appointing Vecchiotti & Conti to carry out a limited exercise.

 

[Numbers]

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

The police and other agents of the Italian Republic, including judges, are obligated to follow the laws of Italy including the European Convention on Human Rights and the final judgments (case-law) of the European Court of Human Rights.

 

[RWVBWL]

"Not right now", they said...

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.

Silly question, but did Amanda ASK if she could have a comfort break?

A comfort break??? Pffft!
You gotta be kidding me...
But let's find out:

"I don't remember!" I said forcefully, trying to shake them off, but it didn't work. They were peppering me relentlessly. The questions seemed simple, but I didn't have the answers. And the more they asked, the more I lost my bearings. I was getting hot, looking around for air. I was having my period, and I could feel myself bleeding into my underwear. "I need to use the bathroom," I said. "I have a feminine issue."

"Not right now," they said. "Did you pause the movie before or after?"

Amanda Knox
Waiting to Be Heard
page 112

 

[carbonjam72]

Then you must agree that she played a huge role in pulling this investigation off the rails.

She testified that when she arrived at the interrogation (at12:30 am) that it was already in disarray.Then than testified that she did what she commonly said she did - acted as a mediator between police and the interogatee.

Both Ficara and Knox needed a translator, who is mainly an interpeter. Precision in meaning between two languages was essential, and Donnino failed miserably. Striking is that she did not interpret properly the English idiom "See you later", as it was rendered in Italian. Even as rendered in Italian by Knox, it still had the English meaning behind it, and Donnino was the only one in the room who had the competence to point that out.

Instead she mediated - by her own admission. One of the guilter commentators here on ISF defended her, saying that her basic role at those things was to be a diplomat.

Is this our dearly departed Mach?

 

[Bill Williams]

Then you must agree that she played a huge role in pulling this investigation off the rails.

She testified that when she arrived at the interrogation (at12:30 am) that it was already in disarray.Then than testified that she did what she commonly said she did - acted as a mediator between police and the interogatee.

Both Ficara and Knox needed a translator, who is mainly an interpeter. Precision in meaning between two languages was essential, and Donnino failed miserably. Striking is that she did not interpret properly the English idiom "See you later", as it was rendered in Italian. Even as rendered in Italian by Knox, it still had the English meaning behind it, and Donnino was the only one in the room who had the competence to point that out.

Instead she mediated - by her own admission. One of the guilter commentators here on ISF defended her, saying that her basic role at those things was to be a diplomat.

Is this our dearly departed Mach?

As per Post #3529 in Continuation 11, December 6, 2014.....

Donnino actually DID think that Knox was confused - to the point of not remembering, therefore Donnino decided to become a mediator and tell Knox the story of how trauma can sometimes lead to forgetfulness.​

But what Donnino says is that Knox did not want to talk. As a mediator, she suggested that maybe Knox could have "removed" the traumatic experience: this is "mediation" since it means give Knox an opportunity and a safe justification for "forgetting" and thus for possibly change her story, so allow her to remember something new safely, without being implicitly accused of being a liar or presented as a liar.
This is called mediation, it's diplomacy, it's work of removal of psycological defence obstacles, and it's routine.But in fact, this does not equate to describing Knox as confused.​

It is no wonder that the ISC in March 2015 decided to adjudicate this case on the evidence. As it relates to Anna Donnino, even Machiavelli - the chief on-line defender of Giuliano Mignini - admits that the one thing which Donnino did not do was......

.... translate.

He also admits that Knox, at interrogation, did not want to talk. This was her right, a right abrogated by the PLE, led by the untrained Donnino.

 

[Bill Williams]

If Donnino was an interpreter and not a cop, she should have stuck to the knitting. In her role as interpreter, then it does mean just that, when interpreting a language, you do not do literal translations, you have to fit the idioms into the other language so that it reads smoothly.

TBH it would have been remiss of Donnino not to pick up on the term, "see you later". I believe the text was in Italian and in the Italian, it literally did infer that there was a planned meeting later. Heck, how are the cops to know Amanda meant, "see you!" as in "goodbye".

Exactly. It's the very reason to bring in an interpretor, who can avoid language/culture misunderstandings.

 

[Bill Williams]

As the Marasca- Bruni (?) court said the acquittal was based on, "insufficient evidence", then I am afraid we are back looking over the merits or "the judicial facts" as you call it. It will be interesting to read the logic.

I believe the one page brief-reason for decision say there was "no evidence", not just insufficient evidence. But as you say, we will see.

Still, I wish that poster upthread would repost the distinction between the evidence which was generated by investigation/forensics, vs. the "judicially generated evidence."

The March 2013 ISC reversal of the Hellmann acquittals was based primarily on its view of judicially generated evidence. As for the investigative/forensic evidence, the Chieffi court in March 2013 actually reversed the burden of proof - making the forensics seem plausible.

It turns out, as of March 2015 - there is nothing in the case against AK or RS, forensically or judicially generated, which condemns them. Nothing.

 

[RWVBWL]

If Donnino was an interpreter and not a cop, she should have stuck to the knitting. In her role as interpreter, then it does mean just that, when interpreting a language, you do not do literal translations, you have to fit the idioms into the other language so that it reads smoothly.

TBH it would have been remiss of Donnino not to pick up on the term, "see you later". I believe the text was in Italian and in the Italian, it literally did infer that there was a planned meeting later. Heck, how are the cops to know Amanda meant, "see you!" as in "goodbye".

Hey Vixen,
Are you aware that Miss Knox writes on page 115 of Waiting to Be Heard,
The Interpreter balked: "You're a liar."


I wonder when Donnino became a part of The Interrogation Team?