Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

I never bought the 53 hours Bremner was pushing. So what? The FOA probably wasn't advised or took the advice of Marriott and went off on their hyperbole but that doesn't change the fact that the police pressed her until she buckled and told them what they knew to be correct - but it wasn't correct. Doesn't that bother you?

I'm not a fan of hyperbole from either side.

From pages 12-13 of Amanda's first appeal the total is 53 hours but may have been revised on later appeals or this 53 hours may be inclusive of time spent in the waiting area.

Amanda Knox è stata sottoposta ad esame ed attività investigative e tra il 2 e il 6 novembre 2007, fino al momento del fermo, ha fornito sommarie informazioni e risposto a domande della A.G. come segue:

2 novembre 2007, ore 15.30 VENERDI’: totale ore …………..
12,00
Verbale di sommarie informazioni della Knox, senza indicazione della chiusura.
Testimoni fino alle 3.00 am del 3 novembre 2007

3 novembre 2007, ore 14.45 SABATO totale ore ………………
8,00
Verbale di sommarie informazioni della Knox, senza indicazione della chiusura.
Testimoni indicano fino alle 22,00.

4 novembre 2007, ore 14.45 DOMENICA: totale ore ………….
12,00
Verbale di sommarie informazioni della Knox, ed accesso alla villetta di Via
della Pergola dalle ore 14.45 alle ore 21. Telefonata di Amanda alla zia dice 5 ore
di interrogatorio in questura

5/6 novembre 2007, ore 01.45 LUNEDI’/MARTEDI’: totale ore ……..
5,00
Verbale di sommarie informazioni della Knox inizio alle ore 22.00 del 5
novembre 2009.

6 novembre 2007, ore 05.45 MARTEDI’: totale ore ……………….
3,45
Verbale di “spontanee dichiarazioni” della Knox con successivo breve
memoriale. Dalle ore 1,45 alle 5,45 e memoriale alle ore 14,00.

In 5 giorni la Knox è stata sentita per un totale di circa 53,45 h.

Grinder,

It's really good of you to keep all these FOA people honest, by not accepting their hyperbole.

We can see from Amanda's appeal document, which used police contact hours as a reference, that over the 3 days before Nov. 5/6, she had only 32 hours of police contact, for an average of only 10 hours and 40 minutes per day of police questioning and other contact with police.

So you are quite correct to see how the FOA used hyperbole in stating that Amanda was spending unusually long days in police contact before being subjected to a coercive interrogation including allegedly being threatened and slapped around just a little bit on Nov. 5/6, during which she was held in police contact for merely another 17.45 hours until she wrote her first Memoriale. And after that, she was in the custody of the Italian authorities, in an Italian prison, for only nearly 4 years.

You may wish to suggest that the police were exaggerating to puff themselves up when they recorded these police contact times, and I have no evidence that would contradict that.

I do think the quote from the testimony of police interpreter Aida Colantone shows that Amanda was showing signs of fatigue on Nov. 4, and there is, at least for the FOA, a certain significance of that to the allegedly planned interrogation.

While you may not accept this evidence, under oath, VQA Giobbi testified that the "simultaneous" interrogations of Amanda and Raffaele were planned by him with "mathematical certainty", and that he and VQA Profazio monitored these interrogations while they were being conducted. I suggest that an objective court, such as the ECHR, will compare Giobbi's testimony of planned interrogations to the actual event of the interrogations and conclude that those interrogations were indeed planned.

 

[Kauffer]

Grinder,

It's really good of you to keep all these FOA people honest, by not accepting their hyperbole.

We can see from Amanda's appeal document, which used police contact hours as a reference, that over the 3 days before Nov. 5/6, she had only 32 hours of police contact, for an average of only 10 hours and 40 minutes per day of police questioning and other contact with police.

So you are quite correct to see how the FOA used hyperbole in stating that Amanda was spending unusually long days in police contact before being subjected to a coercive interrogation including allegedly being threatened and slapped around just a little bit on Nov. 5/6, during which she was held in police contact for merely another 17.45 hours until she wrote her first Memoriale. And after that, she was in the custody of the Italian authorities, in an Italian prison, for only nearly 4 years.

You may wish to suggest that the police were exaggerating to puff themselves up when they recorded these police contact times, and I have no evidence that would contradict that.

I do think the quote from the testimony of police interpreter Aida Colantone shows that Amanda was showing signs of fatigue on Nov. 4, and there is, at least for the FOA, a certain significance of that to the allegedly planned interrogation.

While you may not accept this evidence, under oath, VQA Giobbi testified that the "simultaneous" interrogations of Amanda and Raffaele were planned by him with "mathematical certainty", and that he and VQA Profazio monitored these interrogations while they were being conducted. I suggest that an objective court, such as the ECHR, will compare Giobbi's testimony of planned interrogations to the actual event of the interrogations and conclude that those interrogations were indeed planned.

The really interesting part of the ECHR process will come when the case is communicated to Italy and the correspondence between the parties through the court begins - when Italy must decide how it wishes to handle matters. The Giobbi testimony is devastating evidence against any defence Italy might wish to put forward. What is Italy going to do? Say that this guy was lying?

But the slam dunk evidence in the case - evidence for which there is no possible rebuttal, is the behaviour of Donnino - her active participation in the interrogation and her manipulation of Amanda.

 

[Vixen]

I never bought the 53 hours Bremner was pushing. So what? The FOA probably wasn't advised or took the advice of Marriott and went off on their hyperbole but that doesn't change the fact that the police pressed her until she buckled and told them what they knew to be correct - but it wasn't correct. Doesn't that bother you?

I'm not a fan of hyperbole from either side.

I don't believe for a minute she was under any unethical pressure. Her own culpability is what made her break out in a sweat and heinously accuse an innocent person of rape and murder.

 

[Vixen]

Grinder,

It's really good of you to keep all these FOA people honest, by not accepting their hyperbole.

We can see from Amanda's appeal document, which used police contact hours as a reference, that over the 3 days before Nov. 5/6, she had only 32 hours of police contact, for an average of only 10 hours and 40 minutes per day of police questioning and other contact with police.

So you are quite correct to see how the FOA used hyperbole in stating that Amanda was spending unusually long days in police contact before being subjected to a coercive interrogation including allegedly being threatened and slapped around just a little bit on Nov. 5/6, during which she was held in police contact for merely another 17.45 hours until she wrote her first Memoriale. And after that, she was in the custody of the Italian authorities, in an Italian prison, for only nearly 4 years.

You may wish to suggest that the police were exaggerating to puff themselves up when they recorded these police contact times, and I have no evidence that would contradict that.

I do think the quote from the testimony of police interpreter Aida Colantone shows that Amanda was showing signs of fatigue on Nov. 4, and there is, at least for the FOA, a certain significance of that to the allegedly planned interrogation.

While you may not accept this evidence, under oath, VQA Giobbi testified that the "simultaneous" interrogations of Amanda and Raffaele were planned by him with "mathematical certainty", and that he and VQA Profazio monitored these interrogations while they were being conducted. I suggest that an objective court, such as the ECHR, will compare Giobbi's testimony of planned interrogations to the actual event of the interrogations and conclude that those interrogations were indeed planned.

Amanda spent four years in jail convicted of a serious felony, that even her hero Hellmann agreed with.

There is no evidence Amanda was subjected to torture or brutality.

 

[Bill Williams]

I don't believe for a minute she was under any unethical pressure. Her own culpability is what made her break out in a sweat and heinously accuse an innocent person of rape and murder.

You're allowed to believe anything you want. Otherwise what interests me is what the evidence suggests.

 

[Bill Williams]

Amanda spent four years in jail convicted of a serious felony, that even her hero Hellmann agreed with.

There is no evidence Amanda was subjected to torture or brutality.

You continually bring up strawman arguments. Where is the evidence where Amanda or her lawyers complained of torture?

 

[Bill Williams]

Grinder,

It's really good of you to keep all these FOA people honest, by not accepting their hyperbole.

Yup, kèeping the world safe from FOA hyperbole is also what convinced the courts in Italy eventually to express overall sympathy with an innocence point of view!!!!


BTW - that was sarcasm.

 

[Mr Fied]

There is no evidence Amanda was subjected to torture or brutality.

There is also no evidence that she committed murder but you have trouble believing that.

 

[Numbers]

The really interesting part of the ECHR process will come when the case is communicated to Italy and the correspondence between the parties through the court begins - when Italy must decide how it wishes to handle matters. The Giobbi testimony is devastating evidence against any defence Italy might wish to put forward. What is Italy going to do? Say that this guy was lying?

But the slam dunk evidence in the case - evidence for which there is no possible rebuttal, is the behaviour of Donnino - her active participation in the interrogation and her manipulation of Amanda.

It is certainly important to read the testimony of Anna Donnino, the interpreter and self-described mediator. It is remarkable how precise her testimony is at some points while at others she simply cannot recall.

And she denies hearing any threats made to Amanda by the police, or any slaps. But she does testify that she recounted to Amanda her own memory lapse when she suffered a trauma to her leg

But an objective person reading Donnino's testimony will be struck (pardon the pun) by how her memory of the interrogation of Nov. 5/6 goes in and out of precision at certain key points.

See: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda-knox-transcripts/
March 13, 2009 testimonies - Anna Donnino

Convention Article 6.3e requires a fair interpreter. ECHR case-law: Baytar v Turkey 45440/04 includes requirement for a fair interpreter during interrogation.

 

[Grinder]

I don't believe for a minute she was under any unethical pressure. Her own culpability is what made her break out in a sweat and heinously accuse an innocent person of rape and murder.

Why did the police say she buckled? More importantly why did the police say that they knew what she said was correct?

You really think that after making sure to eliminate all of her fingerprints and DNA while intentionally leaving Rudi's she named Patrick? Wouldn't that alleged clean-up have the intention of eventually having Rudi being the one caught for the crime? Why didn't she mention Rudi earlier ? Why didn't she tell them Meredith had told her Rudi was coming over that evening?

 

[Grinder]

Numbers I take it you didn't hear the 53 hour spiel early on. Not withstanding your superb use of bolding, it was hyperbole that probably didn't help her case. Even Barbie thought Amanda's team should have done a better job. Her comment was specific to the court case but I think the whole defense could have been much better.

Not being an Italian reader I'm not able to determine exactly what all the hours entailed but the PR left the impression it was being questioned.

I didn't say the claims were false, I said hyperbole. She was interviewed and she was stressed and she was tired. The interrogation wasn't brutal but clearly they extracted a false statement.

ETA - from Madison Paxton's Stranger article:

Before being jailed as a suspect, Amanda was interrogated for 53 hours over five days. On November 6, 2007, after an all-night, 14-hour interrogation in Italian (her Italian was at a beginner's level) without a translator, Amanda confessed to being at the crime scene and suggested Patrick Lumumba, her boss, was the murderer.

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/she-didnt-do-it/Content?oid=2929730

Mostly this was heard on the TV spiel by Bremner et al.

 

[Kauffer]

Amanda spent four years in jail convicted of a serious felony, that even her hero Hellmann agreed with.

There is no evidence Amanda was subjected to torture or brutality.

There is evidence she was hit - her own testimony very shortly after. You can call it whatever you want, but call it for what it is - a violation, a breach of Article 3, to which Italy can offer little unless they produce a record. Nor did they investigate as they are obliged to do under the convention.

Imagine that - in 2007, a lengthy interrogation for which the police have no documentation whatsoever except the statement they typed up for the suspect, who had no lawyer, to sign. And they wheeled in their own employee to act as interpreter, who by her own admission, took part in the interrogation and manipulated Amanda.

If you think the ECHR is going to believe the police's version of events in these circumstances, then you are not thinking about this in the right way.

 

[Bill Williams]

Numbers I take it you didn't hear the 53 hour spiel early on. Not withstanding your superb use of bolding, it was hyperbole that probably didn't help her case. Even Barbie thought Amanda's team should have done a better job. Her comment was specific to the court case but I think the whole defense could have been much better.

Not being an Italian reader I'm not able to determine exactly what all the hours entailed but the PR left the impression it was being questioned.

I didn't say the claims were false, I said hyperbole. She was interviewed and she was stressed and she was tired. The interrogation wasn't brutal but clearly they extracted a false statement.

ETA - from Madison Paxton's Stranger article:

Before being jailed as a suspect, Amanda was interrogated for 53 hours over five days. On November 6, 2007, after an all-night, 14-hour interrogation in Italian (her Italian was at a beginner's level) without a translator, Amanda confessed to being at the crime scene and suggested Patrick Lumumba, her boss, was the murderer.

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/she-didnt-do-it/Content?oid=2929730

Mostly this was heard on the TV spiel by Bremner et al.

How did this not "help her case"? Who cares what Barbie Nadeau thought?

Giiven that this is the nub of the issue......

The interrogation wasn't brutal but clearly they extracted a false statement.

.... what it the real significance of anything else? (Please note, I am using the dictionary definition of "real".)

 

[Kauffer]

...... that even her hero Hellmann agreed with

This is what Hellmann said in connection with the calunnia. Remember, he is the convicting judge and this is on the record - it's his own memoriale of convention violations - and he doesn't mention the convention once.

"The obsessive length of the interrogations, carried out during [both] day and night, by more than one person, on a young and foreign girl who at the time did not speak Italian at all well, was unaware of her own rights, did not have the assistance of an attorney (which she should have been entitled to, being at this point suspected of very serious crimes), and was moreover being assisted by an interpreter who — as shown by Ms. Bongiorno — did not limit herself to translating, but induced her to force herself to remember, explaining that she [Amanda] was confused in her memories, perhaps because of the trauma she experienced, makes it wholly understandable that she was in a situation of considerable psychological pressure (to call it stress seems an understatement [appare riduttivo]), enough to raise doubts about the actual spontaneity of her statements; a spontaneity which would have strangely [singolarmente] arisen in the middle of the night, after hours and hours of interrogation: the so-called spontaneous statements were made at 1:45 am (middle of the night) on 11-6-2007(the day after the interrogation had started) and again at 5:45 am afterward, and the note was written a few hours later.

...late at night (1:45 am and 5:45 am) when the so-called “spontaneous” statements were made. Which, contrary to the prosecution’s assumption, serves [only] to demonstrate that Amanda Knox, who at the beginning had no reason to be afraid, went into a state of oppression and stress precisely as a result of her interrogation and the way it was conducted."
It's the sort of language we might expect the ECHR to write itself, in finding for an applicant.

And it's devastating to Italy.

 

[JREF2010]

There is also no evidence that she committed murder but you have trouble believing that.

thats it in one sentence.
it sums up the guilters party ability to think deeper.
they dont have the ability to think past the Daily Mail level thinking. so the same arguments remain, stuck in time, at the Matteini level courts of hearsay 2007-8. they dont have the ability it seems, to go past the Edgardo Giobbi mental-esp-gut instinct approach to solving crimes, and instead ignore DNA and forensics. its like re-reading 2007-2008 over and over.
but its running out of gas, the cancellation of the hate sites and dropping numbers 100 to 83...to 67 peaks..proves this.

the ISC report is awaited but I'll guess it will be short and basically say it was a mistake all along, and in hindsight stupid. an embarrassment for the system report wont accomplish anything.

moving on.....
Migninni will continue to wasted taxpayer money and be a ignorant employee whose not too good at his job etc..etc.. Edgardo Giobbi will continue to use Gut-Instinct like a medieval inquisitor and maybe leave the Amanda picture on the wall at the SCS.... Rudy will walk with a free college degree and maybe a book deal...etc..etc..the product of the Italian System in this long drawn out life ruining case.

I wonder if someone will at least change a law, so its mandatory recording of interrogations in murder cases. If nothing else comes from this case, that would be a good improvement. I give Stefonani that crumb she at least video taped the Forensic fiasco....I guess she didnt have the Budget Cuts Migninni and the Perugia pack had for recording.

 

[Bill Williams]

thats it in one sentence.
it sums up the guilters party ability to think deeper.
they dont have the ability to think past the Daily Mail level thinking. so the same arguments remain, stuck in time, at the Matteini level courts of hearsay 2007-8. they dont have the ability it seems, to go past the Edgardo Giobbi mental-esp-gut instinct approach to solving crimes, and instead ignore DNA and forensics. its like re-reading 2007-2008 over and over.but its running out of gas, the cancellation of the hate sites and dropping numbers 100 to 83...to 67 peaks..proves this.

the ISC report is awaited but I'll guess it will be short and basically say it was a mistake all along, and in hindsight stupid. an embarrassment for the system report wont accomplish anything.

moving on.....
Migninni will continue to wasted taxpayer money and be a ignorant employee whose not too good at his job etc..etc.. Edgardo Giobbi will continue to use Gut-Instinct like a medieval inquisitor and maybe leave the Amanda picture on the wall at the SCS.... Rudy will walk with a free college degree and maybe a book deal...etc..etc..the product of the Italian System in this long drawn out life ruining case.

I wonder if someone will at least change a law, so its mandatory recording of interrogations in murder cases. If nothing else comes from this case, that would be a good improvement. I give Stefonani that crumb she at least video taped the Forensic fiasco....I guess she didnt have the Budget Cuts Migninni and the Perugia pack had for recording.

That highlighted part is it. And what are we to do when their numbers drop to zero?

In any event, it's why it's telling that the remaining guilters do not really accept most of the details in the Massei report from 2010,/ even as Massei's court provisionally convicted Raffaele and Amanda. It's always quoting one of Mignini's assertions - even ones that were rejected by ALL courts.

 

[Numbers]

Numbers I take it you didn't hear the 53 hour spiel early on. Not withstanding your superb use of bolding, it was hyperbole that probably didn't help her case. Even Barbie thought Amanda's team should have done a better job. Her comment was specific to the court case but I think the whole defense could have been much better.

Not being an Italian reader I'm not able to determine exactly what all the hours entailed but the PR left the impression it was being questioned.

I didn't say the claims were false, I said hyperbole. She was interviewed and she was stressed and she was tired. The interrogation wasn't brutal but clearly they extracted a false statement.

ETA - from Madison Paxton's Stranger article:

Before being jailed as a suspect, Amanda was interrogated for 53 hours over five days. On November 6, 2007, after an all-night, 14-hour interrogation in Italian (her Italian was at a beginner's level) without a translator, Amanda confessed to being at the crime scene and suggested Patrick Lumumba, her boss, was the murderer.

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/she-didnt-do-it/Content?oid=2929730

Mostly this was heard on the TV spiel by Bremner et al.

Grinder,
I fail to see what statements from those who are repeating things they must have been told, but not correctly repeating the precise details, has to do with Amanda's or Raffaele's cases, which can be found in their respective appeals documents.

Some are confusing interview hours and police contact hours, for instance. The times are listed in the Italian, "ore" {Italian} = "hours" {English}.

 

[Desert Fox]

Amanda spent four years in jail convicted of a serious felony, that even her hero Hellmann agreed with.

There is no evidence Amanda was subjected to torture or brutality.

Torture does not only include physical violence.

 

[Ken Dine]

[ ]

moving on.....
Migninni will continue to wasted taxpayer money and be a ignorant employee whose not too good at his job etc..etc.. Edgardo Giobbi will continue to use Gut-Instinct like a medieval inquisitor and maybe leave the Amanda picture on the wall at the SCS.... Rudy will walk with a free college degree and maybe a book deal...etc..etc..the product of the Italian System in this long drawn out life ruining case.

[ ]

Hmmm? Ya, that picture -- I wonder if it is still hung on Giobbi's wall of shame?

I wonder how much that framed picture would fetch on eBay?

 

[Grinder]

How did this not "help her case"? Who cares what Barbie Nadeau thought?

Giiven that this is the nub of the issue......

Well you care what Follain thinks and writes and Barbie was actually there .

.... what it the real significance of anything else? (Please note, I am using the dictionary definition of "real".)

Do you discount statements by people if you have caught them lying or exaggerating previously?

When a PGP calls the 5th brutal, Guantanamo like, or torture or states mixed blood was found do you and dismiss the rest?

I think that the defense made it more difficult to stop the trial earlier by some of their tactics.

Since you think it funny or important to bring up the fact that I like to use words as they are defined, I'll remind you that you thought Hellmann got the calunnia correct which forever will influence how I view your assessments of things.