Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Ken Dine]

The police had Amanda's phone tapped since shortly after the murder, so all I'm saying is that the police must have known Edda would be in Perugia on Nov 6th, and that Edda would likely try to rush Amanda out of Italy.

If the police had hoped to force a confession from a lawyerless Amanda in the wee-hours of Nov 6th before mom arrived, then they had to do it that night, and they had many detectives on hand that night to do the job (12?), and even Mignini was still there. Something out of the ordinary was surely in the works that night.

.........

What happened that night isn't very hard to reconstruct, and it was clearly a brutal interrogation, which is why the police had to suppress the recordings.

Ken
I can agree with your analysis, but I was asking a specific question:

Are you saying that the cops said these actual words in this interview?
They actually said "From tapping Amanda’s phone the police knew that Amanda’s mother was arriving the next morning."

Did any of the cops say anything to this effect during this interview?

Yes or no?

I’m a tad confused about the “Interview” you’re referring to?

Do you mean Amanda’s interrogation in the wee-hours of Nov 6th, or something else?

If you mean Amanda’s interrogation, then why would the police mention to Amanda that they knew her mom was coming the next day as they tormented her into confessing?

That doesn’t make any sense?

What does make sense is that, after tapping Amanda's phone for several days, that by Nov 5th the police knew Amanda’s mom would be arriving the next day, and clearly the arrival of Amanda’s mom would complicate matters since Edda would likely drag Amanda to the airport by her braids unless the police could devise a way of stopping Amanda from leaving Italy.

Even if the police somehow stopped Amanda from leaving Italy when they had no evidence against Amanda, having Amanda’s mom thereafter at Amanda’s side would surely prevent the police from ever again interviewing Amanda without a lawyer present.

 

[christianahannah]

Sorry for being a nitpicker here. The document I've linked to is not a transcript of a hearing. It is the Judge Matteini's reasoning for the decision to deny the request of the defense of Amanda Knox to put her under house arrest (i.e. another motivations report).

I think that there never was a hearing on this request and everything was done by paperwork. Actually I think the only glimpse judge Matteini got on Knox was at the Nov 8th, 2007 hearing and that one was over very quickly...

What christianahannah said:

There was a notice in the comments on TJMK yesterday so I went there for a look and the file I've linked to showed up on "the Amanda Wiki" this morning (CET).
I don't care where those documents come from as long as they are recognizable as the real deal. The problem with this latest batch of documents (and those before) is that the scans are of such a poor quality that text recognition is almost impossible

I thought there was a hearing in January 2008 before Matteini (which there was) but only Raffaele was present and I think it dealt mainly with computer issues. There might have been some paperwork submitted on Amanda's behalf but I don't know what that would have contained. The April 2008 SC decision is referenced in the May 2008 motivations so is it possible Matteini was just reconfirming what had already been decided?

I am as you, I don't care where the documents come from, I look at all venues and cross reference and dissect to get the best information.

 

[Antony]

That is factually untrue. C&V abnegated the court instruction to test 36(i), they claimed it was starch and LCN. It was contempt of court on their part.

You earlier stated that C&V defied an order by the SC to do the test. Can you kindly explain how this could be so, when the SC did not rule on this case until after the Conti-Vecchiotti report was published?

Rome tested it and it was Amanda's DNA.

Thereby confirming that the knife was not the murder weapon. You seem to have the faulty impression that the Rome results somehow favoured the prosecution. Here's something else for you to explain: how, exactly, did C&V's "failure" to test 36i make a difference to the evidence in the case?

I've got news for you: the Chieffi cassazzione did not nullify the Conti-Vecchiotti report, and did not reinstate Stefanoni's results - otherwise there would have been no purpose in the additional test of 36i.

Erratum: C&V were ordered to test the knife samples and failed to test 36(i) in contempt of court. That is why Rome tested it instead, for the Nencini court.

OK - here's the question put another way: how would the ultimate results of the 36i test (and the Rome lab's conclusion that Stefanoni's results could not be supported) have affected the Hellmann verdict differently?

You have a poor grasp of the facts of the case.

I think when the Marasca report is published, you will find that my grasp of the case is accurate (though not as detailed as others in this forum).

You are either deluded or in denial.

Personalising the discussion. I'm not the one continually making up "facts" to support an unsustainable position.

 

[Methos]

I thought there was a hearing in January 2008 before Matteini (which there was) but only Raffaele was present and I think it dealt mainly with computer issues. There might have been some paperwork submitted on Amanda's behalf but I don't know what that would have contained. The April 2008 SC decision is referenced in the May 2008 motivations so is it possible Matteini was just reconfirming what had already been decided?

I am as you, I don't care where the documents come from, I look at all venues and cross reference and dissect to get the best information.

I didn't know about that hearing
It really looks like Judge Matteini just rubberstamped the SC decision.

The funny thing is that part of me is happy because the scans are of such a poor quality (you would recognize manipulations immediately.) But the other part is frustrated because the text recognition won't work.
My Italian is getting better but I still rely mostly on google-fu and the remains of 5 years of Latin in highschool

 

[analemma]

I’m a tad confused about the “Interview” you’re referring to?
Do you mean Amanda’s interrogation in the wee-hours of Nov 6th, or something else?
If you mean Amanda’s interrogation, then why would the police mention to Amanda that they knew her mom was coming the next day as they tormented her into confessing?
That doesn’t make any sense?
What does make sense is that, after tapping Amanda's phone for several days, that by Nov 5th the police knew Amanda’s mom would be arriving the next day, and clearly the arrival of Amanda’s mom would complicate matters since Edda would likely drag Amanda to the airport by her braids unless the police could devise a way of stopping Amanda from leaving Italy.
Even if the police somehow stopped Amanda from leaving Italy when they had no evidence against Amanda, having Amanda’s mom thereafter at Amanda’s side would surely prevent the police from ever again interviewing Amanda without a lawyer present.

Ken,
Sorry for the confusion.
What I was asking was "during the interview of the police group pictured, did any of them say that they knew Edda was arriving the next day and therefore had to conduct the interrogation of AK and RS before she arrived?"
Did the "case closed" press conference include the police saying that intentionally scheduled the interrogation so that it would take place before Edda arrived?
BTW, I do agree that they did pick up the kids before Edda arrived to prevent her from interfering with them, but I wanted to know if the police in this press conference explicitly stated that.
Did they?

 

[Matthew Best]

Was this merely one great falsehood which this individual has used as a point of departure to run people much smarter and better informed around in circles?

Yes. Vixen was lying.

 

[Ken Dine]

Ken,
Sorry for the confusion.

What I was asking was "during the interview of the police group pictured, did any of them say that they knew Edda was arriving the next day and therefore had to conduct the interrogation of AK and RS before she arrived?"

Did the "case closed" press conference include the police saying that intentionally scheduled the interrogation so that it would take place before Edda arrived?

BTW, I do agree that they did pick up the kids before Edda arrived to prevent her from interfering with them, but I wanted to know if the police in this press conference explicitly stated that.

Did they?

Even though I wasn't at their victorious 'CASE CLOSED' news conference of Nov 6th, I'm 100% positive that they wouldn't have mentioned Edda's arrival on Nov 6th at that press conference.

Why would they logically even admit that they knew Edda would be arriving at their staged media event?

The point is, the police logically did know that Edda was arriving on Nov 6th, so the police had a narrow window in which to force a confession from Amanda before her mom arrived.

As I had said, once the police noticed the circular sole pattern on Raffaele's shoes during his interrogation, the police had to be 100% certain they were on the right track, which in their minds permitted stretching the law to quickly wrap up the case by forcing a confession from Amanda.

After feeling certain that Raffaele's shoes left bloody tracks in Meredith bedroom and that Raffaele was guilty, the police threw all caution to the wind and zeroed in on Amanda, the witch.

The only problem was, that Raffaele's shoes were only similar to Guede's shoes, and Amanda and Raffaele would both (embarrassingly) turn out to be 100% innocent.

In addition to Mignini, another villain in this drama often not mentioned would be Monica Napoleoni. I feel she first focused in on Amanda on Nov 2nd, and it was Monica Napoleoni who likely convinced Mignini that Amanda was guilty.

Monica Napoleoni also LIED numerous times. Monica Napoleoni also attended many of the court sessions (sitting behind Comidi) even when Napoleoni wasn't required to be there, so this case was obviously personal for her.

Monica Napoleoni also later got into trouble for abusing her authority on another matter.

 

[Dopre]

Personally, I find the deceit in which Vixen perpetually partakes in to be tiring. It's not like we can't see the same old tired guilter pounding of disproven and outright false information for what it is. The need to validate authority and the façade of its virtue. It is the backdrop they use to justify their internet mob mentality and they use it as an excuse to cover for a proclivity.

They are simply propping up their agenda and trying to validate its intent as being honorable. I think after almost a decade of this we should know it has nothing at all to do with honoring a victim and everything to do with covering themselves from scrutiny as to what truly motivates them.

 

[Dopre]

Even though I wasn't at their victorious 'CASE CLOSED' news conference of Nov 6th, I'm 100% positive that they wouldn't have mentioned Edda's arrival on Nov 6th at that press conference.

Why would they logically even admit that they knew Edda would be arriving at their staged media event?

The point is, the police logically did know that Edda was arriving on Nov 6th, so the police had a narrow window in which to force a confession from Amanda before her mom arrived.

As I had said, once the police noticed the circular sole pattern on Raffaele's shoes during his interrogation, the police had to be 100% certain they were on the right track, which in their minds permitted stretching the law to quickly wrap up the case by forcing a confession from Amanda.

After feeling certain that Raffaele's shoes left bloody tracks in Meredith bedroom and that Raffaele was guilty, the police threw all caution to the wind and zeroed in on Amanda, the witch.

The only problem was, that Raffaele's shoes were only similar to Guede's shoes, and Amanda and Raffaele would both (embarrassingly) turn out to be 100% innocent.

In addition to Mignini, another villain in this drama often not mentioned would be Monica Napoleoni. I feel she first focused in on Amanda on Nov 2nd, and it was Monica Napoleoni who likely convinced Mignini that Amanda was guilty.
Monica Napoleoni also LIED numerous times. Monica Napoleoni also attended many of the court sessions (sitting behind Comidi) even when Napoleoni wasn't required to be there, so this case was obviously personal for her.

Monica Napoleoni also later got into trouble for abusing her authority on another matter.

I feel the same way. Napoleoni is absolutely the forgotten villain in this case. Amanda had indicated she felt Napoleoni was short and terse with her while she and Raff waited outside the cottage. She had also mentioned a moment shortly after Mignini's arrival she witnessed them leaning in and speaking to each other while turning their gaze toward her. After reading Amanda's description of the way Napoleoni behaved that day the notion that she might have been the first person to have influenced the direction of Mignini's investigation becomes quite plausible. Napoleoni seemed to dislike Amanda from the start. I think she decided very soon after getting to the crime scene that Amanda was involved.

 

[js202]

Personally, I find the deceit in which Vixen perpetually partakes in to be tiring. It's not like we can't see the same old tired guilter pounding of disproven and outright false information for what it is. The need to validate authority and the façade of its virtue. It is the backdrop they use to justify their internet mob mentality and they use it as an excuse to cover for a proclivity.

Absolutely. It's the type of poster for whom the "ignore" button was invented. It's frankly stunning to me that a) this poster has not been banned for spamming the thread, and/or b) allowed to drift into shunned obscurity by smart contributors who should know better.

 

[js202]

I feel the same way. Napoleoni is absolutely the forgotten villain in this case. Amanda had indicated she felt Napoleoni was short and terse with her while she and Raff waited outside the cottage. She had also mentioned a moment shortly after Mignini's arrival she witnessed them leaning in and speaking to each other while turning their gaze toward her. After reading Amanda's description of the way Napoleoni behaved that day the notion that she might have been the first person to have influenced the direction of Mignini's investigation becomes quite plausible. Napoleoni seemed to dislike Amanda from the start. I think she decided very soon after getting to the crime scene that Amanda was involved.

Yes, these are stunningly common and stupid people. Vestiges of Italy's fascist past.

 

[Bill Williams]

Did Andrew Hodges really say that his thoughtprinting reveals that someone else is a "vagina vampire"?

This one is begging for clarification!

 

[Planigale]

That is factually untrue. C&V abnegated the court instruction to test 36(i), they claimed it was starch and LCN. It was contempt of court on their part. Rome tested it and it was Amanda's DNA.

Erratum: C&V were ordered to test the knife samples and failed to test 36(i) in contempt of court. That is why Rome tested it instead, for the Nencini court.



You have a poor grasp of the facts of the case.




You are either deluded or in denial.

The problem is some of these issues are technical. One cannot do a test if one is not equipped to do so even if a judge has said to do so. C&V were not equipped with a lab for LCN work. They could have done what Stef did; carried out a test they were not equipped or competent to do, improperly, destroying the opportunity for it to be done correctly by a properly equipped lab. Instead they said they could not do the test. That a laboratory set up to do LCN work subsequently did the test shows they made the right decision.

 

[Strozzi]

Ken
I can agree with your analysis, but I was asking a specific question:
Are you saying that the cops said these actual words in this interview?
They actually said "From tapping Amanda’s phone the police knew that Amanda’s mother was arriving the next morning."
Did any of the cops say anything to this effect during this interview?
Yes or no?

Her mother's arrival was not a secret to Amanda. As soon as she learned her mother was coming, Amanda would have told any friends that her mother was coming and when she knew the flight details she would have naturally said "My mom's coming. She's arriving Tuesday". (Nov 6). Amanda would have told Raffaele, Filomena, Laura, et al. She would have told the police too if they inquired how she was doing, how she was sleeping, was she eating OK?, etc. That is in addition to police-monitored phone conversations or emails with her mom.

 

[Dopre]

Absolutely. It's the type of poster for whom the "ignore" button was invented. It's frankly stunning to me that a) this poster has not been banned for spamming the thread, and/or b) allowed to drift into shunned obscurity by smart contributors who should know better.

I seldom post rebuttals to their ravings any longer. The only thing left to do is to call it for what it is. They are using these forums as their playground. They could care less what is said with regard to the spam they post over and over again. It is about eliciting a response that perpetuates their obsessive need to be validated. There really is nothing to argue about with regard to their stance. They are simply looking for the opportunity to spar for the sake of it. We all know nothing will change this person's viewpoint, nor will supplying her with evidence to the contrary ever be considered.

It's futile. She will simply wait until one of her untenable arguments is buried and repeat it again.

 

[Antony]

The problem is some of these issues are technical. One cannot do a test if one is not equipped to do so even if a judge has said to do so. C&V were not equipped with a lab for LCN work. They could have done what Stef did; carried out a test they were not equipped or competent to do, improperly, destroying the opportunity for it to be done correctly by a properly equipped lab. Instead they said they could not do the test. That a laboratory set up to do LCN work subsequently did the test shows they made the right decision.

Not only that but the result of the test made no difference to the evidence - the knife still had no trace of the victim's DNA. The amazing thing is that the guilters - right up to the Perugia prosecutors - think this can be spun to make it seem like Amanda's DNA is somehow significant in this context.

 

[Strozzi]

Did Andrew Hodges really say that his thoughtprinting reveals that someone else is a "vagina vampire"?
This one is begging for clarification!

Apparently so. Please see MichaelB's post, # 3858. This is apparently one reason why MichaelB wrote "Andrew Hodges is one sick mofo.".

 

[Bill Williams]

Did Andrew Hodges really say that his thoughtprinting reveals that someone else is a "vagina vampire"?

This one is begging for clarification!

Apparently so. Please see MichaelB's post, # 3858. This is apparently one reason why MichaelB wrote "Andrew Hodges is one sick mofo.".

This is a jaw-dropper, more than most jaw-droppers.

I had assumed that Andrew Hodges would be scooped up by the remaining guilters. Are they buying this stuff? Do they not realize that this just makes them look dumb?

 

[Bill Williams]

Andrew Hodges is one sick mofo. There's talk of reporting him to the Alabama State Board of Medical Examiners. The man is a fraud.

[qimg]https://scontent-lax1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtf1/v/t1.0-9/s480x480/11742791_10207872901366201_7575281087230911887_n.jpg?oh=d6bff332a621b5357e13b1a87640c31c&oe=561E83DD[/qimg]

I have his book as a PDF that I can upload if anyone wants to see how deranged he is.

How did I miss this?

 

[Strozzi]

This is a jaw-dropper, more than most jaw-droppers.

I had assumed that Andrew Hodges would be scooped up by the remaining guilters. Are they buying this stuff? Do they not realize that this just makes them look dumb?

Jaw-dropper, you say? That's not quite the image that came to mind when Hodges compared Amanda to the myth of the "Vaginal Diante", the vagina with teeth , which grabs and bites.

Hodges might have gotten editing help from Nick van der Leek's editor. Can anyone clarify that?