Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Samson]

It would be fascinating to listen to the interviews with Rudi after he was returned to Perugia both by the police and Mignini.

Yes it would. From memory, in 7 hours, Biscotti said Rudi named nobody because there was no one to name. This was at a time when he could clearly anticipate the strong possibility of good alibis for R and A emerging that would render him a bare faced liar as well as a killer.

 

[bagels]

Yes it would. From memory, in 7 hours, Biscotti said Rudi named nobody because there was no one to name. This was at a time when he could clearly anticipate the strong possibility of good alibis for R and A emerging that would render him a bare faced liar as well as a killer.

The PGP theory is that Rudy didn't name A&R early on because of fear of retaliation. Then later for no real reason, coincidentally when it became clear they had no solid alibi and the prosecution was still trying to go after them, Rudy named them

 

[Samson]

The PGP theory is that Rudy didn't name A&R early on because of fear of retaliation. Then later for no real reason, coincidentally when it became clear they had no solid alibi and the prosecution was still trying to go after them, Rudy named them

Well let's see here. Raffaele is in solitary and Amanda is a girl. Retaliation is off the table. Guede is one evil mother, who destroyed many families in one hit, and has a degree in history. I hate to say it but he would be history in Texas, I guess.

 

[Desert Fox]

Well let's see here. Raffaele is in solitary and Amanda is a girl. Retaliation is off the table. Guede is one evil mother, who destroyed many families in one hit, and has a degree in history. I hate to say it but he would be history in Texas, I guess.

Trouble is that this is with or without evidence in many counties in Texas. If you a black male, you are screwed by the legal system.

 

[Samson]

Trouble is that this is with or without evidence in many counties in Texas. If you a black male, you are screwed by the legal system.

I slipped carelessly into thinking of him simply as a self serving godless sonofabitch. Not black, white or many hued.
I read TJMK today where they are still concentrating on the 50% of Italians that see Knox the killer, so presumably still see poor Rudi. But I have also watched Paroissen's video translations, and see one of the most demonic and deluded characters in the parade of evil characters ever, yet soon to be released without a nod at the carnage he leaves behind.

 

[Desert Fox]

I slipped carelessly into thinking of him simply as a self serving godless sonofabitch. Not black, white or many hued.
I read TJMK today where they are still concentrating on the 50% of Italians that see Knox the killer, so presumably still see poor Rudi. But I have also watched Paroissen's video translations, and see one of the most demonic and deluded characters in the parade of evil characters ever, yet soon to be released without a nod at the carnage he leaves behind.

My argument is just that one should not use Texas as a good example, especially if you are a black suspect.

 

[Numbers]

From the Boninsegnor first-instance court acquittal of Amanda Knox on charges of aggravated continuing calunnia against the police:

Here's a little rough preview in English, translation by Google translate:

In fact, the activities of investigation carried out in the immediacy of Kercher's murder, and that involved directly Knox, are characterized by a number of specific procedural IRREGULARITIES, as already reported, that have even led to the declaration of invalidity of the acts themselves (see the point the Supreme Court of Cassation judgment I Section 1/4/2008, which declared, on a cautionary basis, the uselessness of verbal 6/11/2007, 1:45 and 5:45 hours, since the relevant statements had been taken "without the defensive guarantees from a person who had already formally assumed the role of suspect").

The original is on page 19, last paragraph:

Difatti, le attivita di indagine svolte nell'immediatezza del delitto Kercher, e che hanno coinvolto direttamente la Knox, sono connotate da numerose irritualita procedurali specifiche, come gia segnalato, che hanno finanche condotto alla dichiarazione di invalidita degli atti stessi (si veda sul punto la sentenza Cassazione I Sezione 1/4/2008, che ha dichiarato, in sede cautelare, la inutilizzabilita dei verbali 6/1/2007, ore 1.45 e 5.45, poiche le relative dichiarazioni erano state assunte "senza le garanzie difensive da parte di una persona che aveva gia formalmente assunto la veste di indagata").

Apologies if I have previously posted this here.

 

[Desert Fox]

I don't think the Italian police expected the smack down they appear to have gotten.

 

[Bill Williams]

I don't think the Italian police expected the smack down they appear to have gotten.

It may not be **all** Italian police, but it certainly sucks to be PLE these days, if one is referencing the way they bungled a murder case.

 

[Antony]

I think this is an accurate summary, based on reasonable inferences.

I do have one objection. I believe that the police reasoning for the first point, as testified to by Giobbi, with some inference by me, should be expanded to read:

1. This case involves a break-in by an unknown person. That makes it difficult or even potentially impossible to solve, but the world media is watching and we - the Italian authorities - need an immediate solution.

2. This case can be solved quickly if we can accuse known persons.

3. Therefore, let's assume the break-in was staged.

4. Amanda Knox, a foreigner in Italy who can barely speak Italian, has the weakest alibi for the night of the murder; only her Italian boyfriend can vouch for her wearabouts elsewhere. And, of course, she had access to her flat that she shared with Meredith.

5. Neither Amanda nor her boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, seem like aggressive persons who could kill someone. But Amanda works for Patrick Lumumba, a black African, who we can blame because of racist attitudes in Italy. And he's really a foreigner here in Italy.

6. Bring in Amanda and Raffaele for questioning to force them to tell us what we - the Italian authorities - have decided that we know. This will solve the case immediately, and we - the police and prosecutor - will become heroes. The Italian courts will accept whatever evidence we choose to produce to convict those we - the police and prosecutor - accuse.

Can't disagree with this. A forced "confession" (or even false accusation) is a standard method by rogue police through the ages to "solve" a crime the easy way. That's what told me the case was bogus right when I first read about the case (not till after the 2009 convictions, I have to admit).

 

[LondonJohn]

I think this is an accurate summary, based on reasonable inferences.

I do have one objection. I believe that the police reasoning for the first point, as testified to by Giobbi, with some inference by me, should be expanded to read:

1. This case involves a break-in by an unknown person. That makes it difficult or even potentially impossible to solve, but the world media is watching and we - the Italian authorities - need an immediate solution.

2. This case can be solved quickly if we can accuse known persons.

3. Therefore, let's assume the break-in was staged.

4. Amanda Knox, a foreigner in Italy who can barely speak Italian, has the weakest alibi for the night of the murder; only her Italian boyfriend can vouch for her wearabouts elsewhere. And, of course, she had access to her flat that she shared with Meredith.

5. Neither Amanda nor her boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, seem like aggressive persons who could kill someone. But Amanda works for Patrick Lumumba, a black African, who we can blame because of racist attitudes in Italy. And he's really a foreigner here in Italy.

6. Bring in Amanda and Raffaele for questioning to force them to tell us what we - the Italian authorities - have decided that we know. This will solve the case immediately, and we - the police and prosecutor - will become heroes. The Italian courts will accept whatever evidence we choose to produce to convict those we - the police and prosecutor - accuse.

I'm not sure I share this view - I actually don't think the police/PM ever made these sorts of conscious (or even semi-conscious) decisions to shoehorn the likes of Knox and Sollecito into the frame.

I fully agree with your (1), but differ from (2) onwards. I think that the police/PM allowed themselves to be convinced that the break-in was staged, and that confirmation bias and tunnel vision led them quickly to a position where they believed with a very high degree of confidence that it was a staging. And I think that their reasoning then followed a somewhat automatic (though horribly flawed, and based on a horribly flawed premise) basis:

1) If the break-in was staged, who would have the motive to stage it and why would it be necessary to stage a break-in?

2) Only someone involved in the murder would have staged a break-in. Therefore if we figure out who staged the break-in, we can more-or-less automatically presume that this person (or persons) participated in the murder.

3) It would only be necessary for this person to stage a break-in if that person wanted to misdirect investigators to believe that the murder was committed by someone who had to break in in order to gain entry to the cottage.

4) And who would have the motive to do that? Well, only someone who had key access to the cottage, but who wanted investigators to think that the murder was committed by someone who didn't have key access to the cottage (and who was thus forced to break in to gain entry).

5) So we should look at everyone who had key access to the cottage, since we have already decided that it is only someone from this group of people who would have the motive to stage a break in.

6) (Filomena) Romanelli, (Laura) Mezzetti and Knox are the only three who have key access. There are no other keyholders other than the landlord. And Romanelli and Mezzetti both have verifiable cast-iron alibis.

7) So that leaves Knox. She has no no alibi other than Sollecito, but what if Sollecito were either involved as well or was covering for his new lover with whom he was infatuated?

And from that point on, a toxic mixture of confirmation bias and tunnel vision took hold. The police and PM had settled on this theory that Knox was definitely involved somehow, and that Sollecito was either also involved himself or was covering for Knox. And they went looking for evidence to support this theory. When they found nothing that disproved their theory, and when they were able to interpret (misinterpret) other evidence to seem to support their theory, this pretty much settled it in their minds.

And I think all of this happened before the evening of 5th November 2007.

I think that by the evening of 5th November, the police (in discussion with Mignini) decided that they'd figured out for sure that Knox was involved, and that it would be pretty simple to get a confession out of first Sollecito and then Knox. We need to remember that confessions were the stock-in-trade of the old inquisitorial system in Italy, and I think that police and PM were still heavily programmed to "obtaining" confessions from those whom they believed to be guilty.

And the rest is, as they say, .........................


I really don't think the police/PM ever thought along the lines of "we need to solve this crime really fast, so let's pin it on the "most obvious" suspect" - and far less do I believe there was ever any kind of active police/PM conspiracy to frame Knox or Sollecito. I simply think the police/PM allowed themselves to be led down an improper and illogical blind alley on a trail that ONLY led to Knox (and, by extension, Sollecito), and that confirmation bias and tunnel vision worked its magical powers of deception to CONVINCE the police and PM - in all sincerity - that they'd solved the crime. When Knox made her "confession/accusation", the police and PM saw this as nothing more or less than affirmation of their skill and judgement.

 

[Numbers]

I'm not sure I share this view - I actually don't think the police/PM ever made these sorts of conscious (or even semi-conscious) decisions to shoehorn the likes of Knox and Sollecito into the frame.

I fully agree with your (1), but differ from (2) onwards. I think that the police/PM allowed themselves to be convinced that the break-in was staged, and that confirmation bias and tunnel vision led them quickly to a position where they believed with a very high degree of confidence that it was a staging. And I think that their reasoning then followed a somewhat automatic (though horribly flawed, and based on a horribly flawed premise) basis:

1) If the break-in was staged, who would have the motive to stage it and why would it be necessary to stage a break-in?

2) Only someone involved in the murder would have staged a break-in. Therefore if we figure out who staged the break-in, we can more-or-less automatically presume that this person (or persons) participated in the murder.

3) It would only be necessary for this person to stage a break-in if that person wanted to misdirect investigators to believe that the murder was committed by someone who had to break in in order to gain entry to the cottage.

4) And who would have the motive to do that? Well, only someone who had key access to the cottage, but who wanted investigators to think that the murder was committed by someone who didn't have key access to the cottage (and who was thus forced to break in to gain entry).

5) So we should look at everyone who had key access to the cottage, since we have already decided that it is only someone from this group of people who would have the motive to stage a break in.

6) (Filomena) Romanelli, (Laura) Mezzetti and Knox are the only three who have key access. There are no other keyholders other than the landlord. And Romanelli and Mezzetti both have verifiable cast-iron alibis.

7) So that leaves Knox. She has no no alibi other than Sollecito, but what if Sollecito were either involved as well or was covering for his new lover with whom he was infatuated?

And from that point on, a toxic mixture of confirmation bias and tunnel vision took hold. The police and PM had settled on this theory that Knox was definitely involved somehow, and that Sollecito was either also involved himself or was covering for Knox. And they went looking for evidence to support this theory. When they found nothing that disproved their theory, and when they were able to interpret (misinterpret) other evidence to seem to support their theory, this pretty much settled it in their minds.

And I think all of this happened before the evening of 5th November 2007.

I think that by the evening of 5th November, the police (in discussion with Mignini) decided that they'd figured out for sure that Knox was involved, and that it would be pretty simple to get a confession out of first Sollecito and then Knox. We need to remember that confessions were the stock-in-trade of the old inquisitorial system in Italy, and I think that police and PM were still heavily programmed to "obtaining" confessions from those whom they believed to be guilty.

And the rest is, as they say, .........................


I really don't think the police/PM ever thought along the lines of "we need to solve this crime really fast, so let's pin it on the "most obvious" suspect" - and far less do I believe there was ever any kind of active police/PM conspiracy to frame Knox or Sollecito. I simply think the police/PM allowed themselves to be led down an improper and illogical blind alley on a trail that ONLY led to Knox (and, by extension, Sollecito), and that confirmation bias and tunnel vision worked its magical powers of deception to CONVINCE the police and PM - in all sincerity - that they'd solved the crime. When Knox made her "confession/accusation", the police and PM saw this as nothing more or less than affirmation of their skill and judgement.

You make some interesting points, which may be correct, for some of those involved among the Italian authorities.

However, in disagreeing, I point out:

But, the Marasca CSC panel in its MR specifically stated that the investigative phase was screwed up (I paraphrase) because of perceived pressure on the police (and prosecutor?) due to media attention.

The police had other evidence immediately available that there was some unusual activity in the downstairs flat involving blood. The police actually knew this was from human, not animal activity, as a result of the witness interviews with the downstairs boys. See AmandaKnoxCase.com for those witness statements.

The prosecutor left out the closing "good night" (buona serata, IIRC) in describing the alleged evidence of her message to Lumumba. This deception by omission made it seem more likely that her message in Italian meant "let's see each other later" as an appointment rather than an attempt by a beginner in Italian to render the English indefinite farewell "see you later".

The police and prosecutor would have known by about November 8, IIUC, that Patrick Lumumba's DNA was not in or on Meredith, and neither was Raffaele's nor Amanda's DNA. But they went all out to distort or fabricate evidence against all three; they even had a witness available to falsely state that Lumumba's pub was closed on the relevant night.

 

[Antony]

...

I really don't think the police/PM ever thought along the lines of "we need to solve this crime really fast, so let's pin it on the "most obvious" suspect" - and far less do I believe there was ever any kind of active police/PM conspiracy to frame Knox or Sollecito. I simply think the police/PM allowed themselves to be led down an improper and illogical blind alley on a trail that ONLY led to Knox (and, by extension, Sollecito), and that confirmation bias and tunnel vision worked its magical powers of deception to CONVINCE the police and PM - in all sincerity - that they'd solved the crime. When Knox made her "confession/accusation", the police and PM saw this as nothing more or less than affirmation of their skill and judgement.

LJ, you are entitled to your view but I think you are being far too generous to the police and prosecutor. The pattern of behaviour in suppressing and manipulating evidence, and the statements made - particularly by Giobbi and di Felice - indicated a disregard for facts and justice that is sadly typical in miscarriage of justice cases.

Once the so-called investigators had fixed the direction of their case with the illegal arrests, it was all too clear that their priority was to validate their "solution" to the crime above finding justice. So why should we think that this became their priority only after the notorious press conference? The fact that they were so hasty to cut their own options indicates that it was their priority from the beginning.

 

[Numbers]

I'm not sure I share this view - I actually don't think the police/PM ever made these sorts of conscious (or even semi-conscious) decisions to shoehorn the likes of Knox and Sollecito into the frame.

I fully agree with your (1), but differ from (2) onwards. I think that the police/PM allowed themselves to be convinced that the break-in was staged, and that confirmation bias and tunnel vision led them quickly to a position where they believed with a very high degree of confidence that it was a staging. And I think that their reasoning then followed a somewhat automatic (though horribly flawed, and based on a horribly flawed premise) basis:

1) If the break-in was staged, who would have the motive to stage it and why would it be necessary to stage a break-in?

....

You make some interesting points, which may be correct, for some of those involved among the Italian authorities.

However, in disagreeing, I point out:

But, the Marasca CSC panel in its MR specifically stated that the investigative phase was screwed up (I paraphrase) because of perceived pressure on the police (and prosecutor?) due to media attention.

The police had other evidence immediately available that there was some unusual activity in the downstairs flat involving blood. The police actually knew this was from human, not animal activity, as a result of the witness interviews with the downstairs boys. See AmandaKnoxCase.com for those witness statements.

The prosecutor left out the closing "good night" (buona serata, IIRC) in describing the alleged evidence of her message to Lumumba. This deception by omission made it seem more likely that her message in Italian meant "let's see each other later" as an appointment rather than an attempt by a beginner in Italian to render the English indefinite farewell "see you later".

The police and prosecutor would have known by about November 8, IIUC, that Patrick Lumumba's DNA was not in or on Meredith, and neither was Raffaele's nor Amanda's DNA. But they went all out to distort or fabricate evidence against all three; they even had a witness available to falsely state that Lumumba's pub was closed on the relevant night.

LJ, you are entitled to your view but I think you are being far too generous to the police and prosecutor. The pattern of behaviour in suppressing and manipulating evidence, and the statements made - particularly by Giobbi and di Felice - indicated a disregard for facts and justice that is sadly typical in miscarriage of justice cases.

Once the so-called investigators had fixed the direction of their case with the illegal arrests, it was all too clear that their priority was to validate their "solution" to the crime above finding justice. So why should we think that this became their priority only after the notorious press conference? The fact that they were so hasty to cut their own options indicates that it was their priority from the beginning.

One indicator of the police intent to frame, which I forgot to add.

If my information is correct, the police quickly found a "witness" who would falsely state that Lumumba's pub was closed on the night of November 1, 2007, during the relevant time.

The lack of Lumumba's DNA in or on the victim did not make any difference to the police and prosecution, until the Swiss professor gave evidence that Lumumba was at his open pub on night of Nov. 1.

It is important that it is the prosecutor that is the actual directive head of a police investigation in Italy, by law. The police officers involved in the investigation must follow the prosecutor's direction, or they can be removed from the investigation and return to their regular tasks.

 

[Planigale]

I agree. The Squadra Mobile were given medals
“To recognize elevated professional capabilities, investigative acumen, and an uncommon operative determination. They conducted a complex investigation that concluded in the arrest of the authors of the murder of the British student that had taken place in the historic center of Perugia.”

Of course, we know this incredible job of investigation would later be revealed to be horribly inept and incompetent.

Steffanoni and Mignini were also promoted. Of course we know this is the natural response of a bureaucracy.

 

[LondonJohn]

One indicator of the police intent to frame, which I forgot to add.

If my information is correct, the police quickly found a "witness" who would falsely state that Lumumba's pub was closed on the night of November 1, 2007, during the relevant time.

The lack of Lumumba's DNA in or on the victim did not make any difference to the police and prosecution, until the Swiss professor gave evidence that Lumumba was at his open pub on night of Nov. 1.

It is important that it is the prosecutor that is the actual directive head of a police investigation in Italy, by law. The police officers involved in the investigation must follow the prosecutor's direction, or they can be removed from the investigation and return to their regular tasks.

Well this largely comes down to one's definition of "frame".

I don't think the PM or police ever set out to "frame" Knox, Sollecito or Lumumba in the classical sense of "decide without foundation to pin the blame on....". What I think happened was that the PM and police came to a number of incorrect conclusions (chief among which were the idea that the break-in was staged, and the idea that Knox's "see you later" text meant she was confirming plans for a physical meeting that night), and that by the small hours of the morning of 6th November 2007 they genuinely, sincerely thought they'd solved the crime and caught the right people.

And IMO once they'd reached that point, another level of malpractice and incompetence kicked in: the type of confirmation bias that led the PM and police - who IMO were certain they'd figured out the crime and its protagonists entirely accurately, remember - to go out looking for evidence to support this conclusion. After all (in their heads), since they'd solved the crime properly, it ought to be fairly easy to find evidence of something which they were already convinced had actually happened (i.e. that Knox had met with Lumumba, and that the two of them (with or without Sollecito in those early days of the investigation) had gone to the cottage where Lumumba (with or without Sollecito) had attacked, assaulted and killed Kercher, and Knox and Sollecito had cleaned up the crime scene later that night or the next morning and staged the break-in). The police and PM already "knew" that all this had actually taken place, so they went looking for evidence of it - just as if you know a ship has sunk, you go looking for ship wreckage on the bottom of the ocean.

So in the case of Lumumba's bar for example, the PM/police had decided that Lumumba was a direct participant in the murder. And they knew that Kercher hadn't arrived back until around 9pm, and believed that the murder had occurred at something around 10.30-11pm at that point. In order for all this to be true (which they were sure it was), it would have been necessary for Lumumba's bar to have been closed for at least a large part of that evening. And since the police "knew" Lumumba was involved, they also "knew" by extension that his bar HAD to have been closed for a good portion of that evening. So they went looking for evidence of the thing they already KNEW to be true - that Lumumba's bar was closed for a good part of that evening. Naturally when they found someone who was prepared to agree with their position, they used that as confirmation of the "truth". I am guessing that they might have talked with others who'd told them that Lumumba's bar had in fact been open all that evening, with Lumumba present - but the police and PM would have written off such people as unreliable or somehow wrong in some other way, since the police/PM already KNEW that Lumumba's bar had to have been closed for a large part of that evening.

That's how I think this all went down: false (but sincere) certainty in the "truth" of a set of events and protagonists, based on erroneous inferences and other factors, followed by an improper confirmation-bias-led approach to finding evidence to "confirm" this already-decided "truth".

 

[Planigale]

The biggest problem I see with this case is the Italian system that lets someone like Mignini decide who to investigate instead of just letting the detectives follow the evidence.

Yes. I think when revising their criminal system (if they ever do), the Italians need to separate the investigating magistrate from the police investigation. Along with making forensic science arms length from the police. (If they were smart it would be income generating, the carabinieri labs could do the defence for national police cases and vice versa.)

 

[LondonJohn]

Steffanoni and Mignini were also promoted. Of course we know this is the natural response of a bureaucracy.

Indeed. And especially a bureaucracy with very low levels of regulation or accountability, and/or one where personal and group politics/power play a significant role. In this instance, we have all of the above...........

 

[Planigale]

I'm not sure I share this view - I actually don't think the police/PM ever made these sorts of conscious (or even semi-conscious) decisions to shoehorn the likes of Knox and Sollecito into the frame.

I fully agree with your (1), but differ from (2) onwards. I think that the police/PM allowed themselves to be convinced that the break-in was staged, and that confirmation bias and tunnel vision led them quickly to a position where they believed with a very high degree of confidence that it was a staging. And I think that their reasoning then followed a somewhat automatic (though horribly flawed, and based on a horribly flawed premise) basis:

1) If the break-in was staged, who would have the motive to stage it and why would it be necessary to stage a break-in?

2) Only someone involved in the murder would have staged a break-in. Therefore if we figure out who staged the break-in, we can more-or-less automatically presume that this person (or persons) participated in the murder.

3) It would only be necessary for this person to stage a break-in if that person wanted to misdirect investigators to believe that the murder was committed by someone who had to break in in order to gain entry to the cottage.

4) And who would have the motive to do that? Well, only someone who had key access to the cottage, but who wanted investigators to think that the murder was committed by someone who didn't have key access to the cottage (and who was thus forced to break in to gain entry).

5) So we should look at everyone who had key access to the cottage, since we have already decided that it is only someone from this group of people who would have the motive to stage a break in.

6) (Filomena) Romanelli, (Laura) Mezzetti and Knox are the only three who have key access. There are no other keyholders other than the landlord. And Romanelli and Mezzetti both have verifiable cast-iron alibis.

7) So that leaves Knox. She has no no alibi other than Sollecito, but what if Sollecito were either involved as well or was covering for his new lover with whom he was infatuated?

And from that point on, a toxic mixture of confirmation bias and tunnel vision took hold. The police and PM had settled on this theory that Knox was definitely involved somehow, and that Sollecito was either also involved himself or was covering for Knox. And they went looking for evidence to support this theory. When they found nothing that disproved their theory, and when they were able to interpret (misinterpret) other evidence to seem to support their theory, this pretty much settled it in their minds.

And I think all of this happened before the evening of 5th November 2007.

I think that by the evening of 5th November, the police (in discussion with Mignini) decided that they'd figured out for sure that Knox was involved, and that it would be pretty simple to get a confession out of first Sollecito and then Knox. We need to remember that confessions were the stock-in-trade of the old inquisitorial system in Italy, and I think that police and PM were still heavily programmed to "obtaining" confessions from those whom they believed to be guilty.

And the rest is, as they say, .........................


I really don't think the police/PM ever thought along the lines of "we need to solve this crime really fast, so let's pin it on the "most obvious" suspect" - and far less do I believe there was ever any kind of active police/PM conspiracy to frame Knox or Sollecito. I simply think the police/PM allowed themselves to be led down an improper and illogical blind alley on a trail that ONLY led to Knox (and, by extension, Sollecito), and that confirmation bias and tunnel vision worked its magical powers of deception to CONVINCE the police and PM - in all sincerity - that they'd solved the crime. When Knox made her "confession/accusation", the police and PM saw this as nothing more or less than affirmation of their skill and judgement.

I agree with you.

 

[Bill Williams]

I think that by the evening of 5th November, the police (in discussion with Mignini) decided that they'd figured out for sure that Knox was involved, and that it would be pretty simple to get a confession out of first Sollecito and then Knox. We need to remember that confessions were the stock-in-trade of the old inquisitorial system in Italy, and I think that police and PM were still heavily programmed to "obtaining" confessions from those whom they believed to be guilty.

And the rest is, as they say, .........................


I really don't think the police/PM ever thought along the lines of "we need to solve this crime really fast, so let's pin it on the "most obvious" suspect" - and far less do I believe there was ever any kind of active police/PM conspiracy to frame Knox or Sollecito. I simply think the police/PM allowed themselves to be led down an improper and illogical blind alley on a trail that ONLY led to Knox (and, by extension, Sollecito), and that confirmation bias and tunnel vision worked its magical powers of deception to CONVINCE the police and PM - in all sincerity - that they'd solved the crime. When Knox made her "confession/accusation", the police and PM saw this as nothing more or less than affirmation of their skill and judgement.

I agree with you.

I agree with you both. LJ's scenario sounds a lot like what that Vancouver wrongful conviction conference found in 2007 as to commonalities on the dozen or so Canadian wrongful convictions. It may be more akin to the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis in the States (see "The Big Short") where even the experts got fooled that bundled mortgages had value, even if each individual mortgage was junk.