Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

As of the time of Amanda blurting out Patrick raped and murdered Mez, the police awareness was that she was a passive, innocent witness to a crime, terrified of this dangerous man.

Why would she have needed a lawyer at this stage?

However, after consultation amongst themselves, the police terminated the session and acted entirely correctly and properly.

It's part of the trial record that she was being confronted with her communication with Lumumba. The cops said she went to meet him; then according to the police interpreter, the cops confronted her with the news that Raffaele had taken away her alibi. Why would she need an alibi if she was a passive, innocent witness in the minds of her interrogators?

And why didn't she get a lawyer immediately after Lumumba was named? Why didn't she get a lawyer until the day after next, immediately before she saw the judge? Why wasn't she allowed to consult with him before she saw the judge?

It's clear Vixen does not believe the trial record. Vixen believes that even the convicting judges had an agenda not reflected in the record - witness the number of times Vixen has said that even Massei, "Threw one the kids way....."

Maybe it would be better to try things one at a time. Ask Vixen this question (from NotEvenWrong) and ask that Vixen simply answer it, yes or no.

Before the police brought Amanda in for questioning, did they believe she sent Patrick this "see you later" text and it was related to the muder? [yes/no]​

Then the other two questions can be dealt with.

ETA - it would appear from Vixen's response to you quoted here, that her answer would be "no", that the police had no idea what the SMS text meant, and most certainly did not think it connected to the murder. But then again, Vixen can clear this up if she so chooses. She knows why she does not want to be led down this line of questioning, because NotEvenWrong's two other questions wait.....

 

[js202]

Quoth Mark Twain:

Vixen, some of the items on your list aren't true at all, many aren't relevant to the case, and others stretch the technical limitations of truth.

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."

 

[toto]

Thanks to Numbers, Kauffer (and the others). I am cautiously optimistic. Btw my quoting of the poster wanting to take Guede to a pub was not meant approvingly.

 

[acbytesla]

Thanks to Numbers, Kauffer (and the others). I am cautiously optimistic. Btw my quoting of the poster wanting to take Guede to a pub was not meant approvingly.

I agree with this toto. Numbers in particular has made it his quest to tackle the procedures and case law of the ECHR and pass it on to the rest of us. Everything he has predicted has come to fruition and there is little reason not to expect total fulfillment of the rest of his predictions.

It's very clear to me that people in Italy expect it too. The Court of Cassation basically admitted as much in their last ruling. Combined with police callunia motivation, I think it will be more than shocking if Italy doesn't capitulate and settle the case especially considering that it will be in the Executive branch that handles this.

 

[Bill Williams]

I agree with this toto. Numbers in particular has made it his quest to tackle the procedures and case law of the ECHR and pass it on to the rest of us. Everything he has predicted has come to fruition and there is little reason not to expect total fulfillment of the rest of his predictions.

It's very clear to me that people in Italy expect it too. The Court of Cassation basically admitted as much in their last ruling. Combined with police callunia motivation, I think it will be more than shocking if Italy doesn't capitulate and settle the case especially considering that it will be in the Executive branch that handles this.

If you're referring to the Marasca/Bruno report, they had a funny way of "basically admitting as such". Even in acquitting the pair and stopping the lunacy surrounding the murder prosecutions - M/B seemed to be drawing a line in the sand over the calunnia conviction re: Lumumba.

It's one thing to have the bare legislation. It's quite another to have a long litany of "case law" (if that even applies) in the way it is judged on a long series of case-by-case cases.

I wish I was as optimistic as you people that ECHR will see it Numbers' way. Then again, I'm the guy who once thought that Hellmann had come to the Goldilocks judgement in acquitting on the 4 charges relating to the murder, and convicting in relation to calunnia. In about Feb 2012 I changed on calunnia (after reading what Mignini had had to say about the conduct of the interrogation); but there's always been this thing that people outside of Italy - lay or legal-beagle; don't quite "get" calunnia.

 

[acbytesla]

If you're referring to the Marasca/Bruno report, they had a funny way of "basically admitting as such". Even in acquitting the pair and stopping the lunacy surrounding the murder prosecutions - M/B seemed to be drawing a line in the sand over the calunnia conviction re: Lumumba.
It's one thing to have the bare legislation. It's quite another to have a long litany of "case law" (if that even applies) in the way it is judged on a long series of case-by-case cases.

I wish I was as optimistic as you people that ECHR will see it Numbers' way. Then again, I'm the guy who once thought that Hellmann had come to the Goldilocks judgement in acquitting on the 4 charges relating to the murder, and convicting in relation to calunnia. In about Feb 2012 I changed on calunnia (after reading what Mignini had had to say about the conduct of the interrogation); but there's always been this thing that people outside of Italy - lay or legal-beagle; don't quite "get" calunnia.

I read it differently Bill. It was almost as if MB knew that the ECHR was going to take them to task on the Lumumba callunia and they were acknowledging it. Keep in mind that MB couldn't actually reverse the calunia that having already been decided. Why even mention it? No, it was portentous of what they knew was to follow.

 

[Dougm]

I find this notion that the PG folk have come up with -- that Amanda was not a suspect for the Calunnia, since that had not happened yet -- very odd, both in legal and practical logic.

The concept of a suspect having a lawyer to represent them during questioning is not limited to the idea that they might say something to the police that would implicate them in the exact crime that the police suspect them of. The average person is not versed in the law, and, left to their own devices (especially under duress), can often make statements that end up being used against them for other crimes as well.

For example, lets say I am called into the police station because they suspect me of a murder. The cops pretend I am just a witness, even though they suspect me of the killing, because they know I was the last known person to see the victim alive. Being innocent, I naively miss the idea they suspect me, and start telling them what I know. In the process of explaining that Ms. X, the murder victim, was only an acquaintance of mine, they demand to know what she was doing at my home. I tell them that she and I were partners in a business, and we were discussing what payment methods to accept, and then she left, and next thing I know, she turns up dead in her car. Well, it turns out Ms. X was defrauding people as part of an unrelated business, and because I admitted discussing payment methods with her, the cops charge me with conspiracy to commit a similar fraud (not believing that I had no idea she was a crook before agreeing to partner with her).

So, should the police have let me know I was a suspect in the murder? Yes. Should I have had an attorney? Yes. Since I did not have an attorney, because they lied to me about being a suspect in the murder, should my statements about planning the payment methods with Ms. X be used to charge me with an unrelated crime, one which the cops did not know anything about when my interrogation started? NO.

This idea that Amanda had not made any statements about Lumumba yet, so she was not a suspect in that crime, is bunk. The right to an attorney is to protect a person from unwittingly implicating themselves in any crime, or making statements that unwittingly aid the prosecution in convicting them. Because they are presumed innocent prior to the trial. It's not acceptable to say that the right to an attorney applies to one crime and not another.

 

[LondonJohn]

The ECHR smackdown is going to be devastating for clueless Jackie and Hugo. The good point here is that since these two clowns haven't gotten anything right about the case--ever--their continued puzzlement and resistance can only mean that the ECHR will definitely rule in favor of Knox.

I can understand the likes of Jackie not being able to work out the proper test for when a lawyer should be made available, but how can anyone fail to understand your point B, above?

Jackie in particular has, over the past few months, been amusingly (and embarrassingly) attempting to reposition himself as an "honest broker" who's got no prejudices or preconceptions about this case, and who's fabulously open minded about everything. In that way, he thinks he can reconcile his (badly misjudged) faith in his own "intellect" with the barrage of pro-defence decisions that have already started and which will culminate in a strong ECHR ruling in Knox's favour. But you're fooling nobody, Jackie! I suggest that Jackie (and others) read back through his screeds over the past few years if they want to gain some real insight into the vindictive, prejudiced, deeply pro-guilt nature of his outpourings - laced for good measure with nasty levels of scorn and vitriol. And pretty much everything he's written (up to his phony "road to Damascus" conversion to open-minded neutrality) has been stunningly wrong. What a fraud.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

As of the time of Amanda blurting out Patrick raped and murdered Mez, the police awareness was that she was a passive, innocent witness to a crime, terrified of this dangerous man.

Why would she have needed a lawyer at this stage?

However, after consultation amongst themselves, the police terminated the session and acted entirely correctly and properly.

As we predicted, you did not answer the questions.

Here they are again:

When the police saw the "see you later" text, did they believe that that it meant Amanda was going to meet up with Patrick later that same evening? [yes/no]

Were they correct in believing this? [yes/no]

Before the police brought Amanda in for questioning, did they believe she sent Patrick this "see you later" text and it was related to the muder? [yes/no]


Note that I left a convenient answer key with a [yes/no] after each question. It's a multiple choice! 50% chance of being right every time!

You do have a talent for dancing around inconvenient truths, I'll give you that.

 

[Bill Williams]

As we predicted, you did not answer the questions.

Here they are again:

When the police saw the "see you later" text, did they believe that that it meant Amanda was going to meet up with Patrick later that same evening? [yes/no]

I believe the answers below would be consistent with what Vixen has said so far. If not Vixen can correct it.

The answer is "yes" from Vixen's point of view. However, the police had no idea that this had anything to do with the crime of murder, until Knox buckled. Up until the "buckling" the police now had her in two lies - first one about marijuana use in the cottage, now about whether or not she'd gone out. What they didn't know, as per Vixen, was that Knox linking the murder with this SMS was a third lie.

Were they correct in believing this? [yes/no]

"Correct" in what sense? They were correct that this made Knox out to be a liar, in that meeting Lumumba later that evening would have made her untruthful in claiming she'd been at Raffaele's.

Before the police brought Amanda in for questioning, did they believe she sent Patrick this "see you later" text and it was related to the muder? [yes/no]

Vixen's answer is "no". The police were not specifically aware of that SMS until Ficarra had asked her to surrender her phone at circa 11 pm Nov 5. No one suspected Lumumba at all until Knox's "buckling".

Note that I left a convenient answer key with a [yes/no] after each question. It's a multiple choice! 50% chance of being right every time!

You do have a talent for dancing around inconvenient truths, I'll give you that.

Does this suffice?

 

[LondonJohn]

I find this notion that the PG folk have come up with -- that Amanda was not a suspect for the Calunnia, since that had not happened yet -- very odd, both in legal and practical logic.

The concept of a suspect having a lawyer to represent them during questioning is not limited to the idea that they might say something to the police that would implicate them in the exact crime that the police suspect them of. The average person is not versed in the law, and, left to their own devices (especially under duress), can often make statements that end up being used against them for other crimes as well.

For example, lets say I am called into the police station because they suspect me of a murder. The cops pretend I am just a witness, even though they suspect me of the killing, because they know I was the last known person to see the victim alive. Being innocent, I naively miss the idea they suspect me, and start telling them what I know. In the process of explaining that Ms. X, the murder victim, was only an acquaintance of mine, they demand to know what she was doing at my home. I tell them that she and I were partners in a business, and we were discussing what payment methods to accept, and then she left, and next thing I know, she turns up dead in her car. Well, it turns out Ms. X was defrauding people as part of an unrelated business, and because I admitted discussing payment methods with her, the cops charge me with conspiracy to commit a similar fraud (not believing that I had no idea she was a crook before agreeing to partner with her).

So, should the police have let me know I was a suspect in the murder? Yes. Should I have had an attorney? Yes. Since I did not have an attorney, because they lied to me about being a suspect in the murder, should my statements about planning the payment methods with Ms. X be used to charge me with an unrelated crime, one which the cops did not know anything about when my interrogation started? NO.

This idea that Amanda had not made any statements about Lumumba yet, so she was not a suspect in that crime, is bunk. The right to an attorney is to protect a person from unwittingly implicating themselves in any crime, or making statements that unwittingly aid the prosecution in convicting them. Because they are presumed innocent prior to the trial. It's not acceptable to say that the right to an attorney applies to one crime and not another.

In part I agree. But I think it's more complex than that.

There truly are theoretical circumstances in which someone can commit a criminal offence in the course of genuinely being interviewed as a witness. As an example, suppose that Mr X was a witness to an assault in a bar, and he was being questioned by the police about what he saw. Suppose that for some reason Mr X became extremely agitated during the police interview, and reached across the table and started punching the interviewing officer in the face. He would have committed the crime of assaulting a police officer.

This is the way that most pro-guilt commentators would like everyone to think that Knox's criminal slander took place - that it came out of a clear blue sky while the police were conducting a totally non-accusatory "witness" interview with her. But of course it didn't happen this way at all. If we overlay what really happened with Knox onto my example above, it would be tantamount to the police officer repeatedly and forcefully ordering Mr X to punch him (the officer) in the face, and telling him that he (Mr X) faced dreadful consequences if he didn't start punching. Then, as soon as Mr X threw the punches as ordered, the police arrested him for assaulting a police officer......

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Thanks.

I believe the answers below would be consistent with what Vixen has said so far. If not Vixen can correct it.

The answer is "yes" from Vixen's point of view. However, the police had no idea that this had anything to do with the crime of murder, until Knox buckled.

Knox "buckled" to what? Why did the police even bring up the text message at all if it was completely irrelevant to anything and everything? Why would they care if Knox and Lumamba were going out for a beer? [of course I know you are smart enough to not believe these things Bill. Just throwing some questions out there for our slower participants. May get them to start thinking.]

"Correct" in what sense?

Correct in the sense that Amanda was actually planning to meet Patrick that evening, per the police's assumptions.

They were correct that this made Knox out to be a liar, in that meeting Lumumba later that evening would have made her untruthful in claiming she'd been at Raffaele's.

Isn't it on record that the police initially believed Lumamba was involved? What were they getting Knox to "buckle" to if they had no interest at all in the text message "see you later"?

Vixen's answer is "no". The police were not specifically aware of that SMS until Ficarra had asked her to surrender her phone at circa 11 pm Nov 5. No one suspected Lumumba at all until Knox's "buckling".

I am not familiar with the timeline of when everyone surrendered their phone. When did Knox first say Lumamba's name? Before or after the police saw the text message? This has to be established fact somewhere.

 

[Dougm]

In part I agree. But I think it's more complex than that.

There truly are theoretical circumstances in which someone can commit a criminal offence in the course of genuinely being interviewed as a witness. As an example, suppose that Mr X was a witness to an assault in a bar, and he was being questioned by the police about what he saw. Suppose that for some reason Mr X became extremely agitated during the police interview, and reached across the table and started punching the interviewing officer in the face. He would have committed the crime of assaulting a police officer.

This is the way that most pro-guilt commentators would like everyone to think that Knox's criminal slander took place - that it came out of a clear blue sky while the police were conducting a totally non-accusatory "witness" interview with her. But of course it didn't happen this way at all. If we overlay what really happened with Knox onto my example above, it would be tantamount to the police officer repeatedly and forcefully ordering Mr X to punch him (the officer) in the face, and telling him that he (Mr X) faced dreadful consequences if he didn't start punching. Then, as soon as Mr X threw the punches as ordered, the police arrested him for assaulting a police officer......

OK. So, given what you said above (which I agree with), let's try this one:

NOTE TO GUILTERS AND ANYONE ELSE WHO MIGHT NOT BE CLEAR. THIS IS NOT WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED, JUST A HYPOTHETICAL.

Amanda Knox is at the police station, having come in with Raffaele because she didn't want to be alone. The cops call her into a room to be interrogated. She is cooperating, not realizing they suspect her of the murder. Their questions are pointed, but not deceptive or abusive in any way. At one point, she starts to realize they seem to be accusing her of things, and asks if she should have an attorney. She has sensed that the cops suspect her of something. They tell her she should not have an attorney, and that having one would be worse for her. She gets tired of being questioned -- after all, it is late, and she wants to go home and hang out with Raffaele. So she decides the best way out is to tell them she imagines Lumumba being there and killing Meredith (maybe they will let her go and go bother him for awhile??). It does not occur to her that she is implicating herself as well.

Now, she was a suspect, of either the murder or lying to police, before they called her into the room. They told her she did not need an attorney. But then, she, without it being suggested to her, accused another person of the crime. Should her statements be admissible in the charge of calunnia against her? Is this situation similar to the example of the person punching the cop out of the blue?

I say no. The cops misled her about being a suspect, and that led her to not insist on an attorney, who would have immediately told her to stop talking to the cops, and, if they had a side discussion, that it is a serious crime to tell the cops someone else might have done it, even if you are saying it is just a confused vision.

The point is -- even if the (ridiculous) assertion by certain PG folks was true, that Amanda accused Lumumba, not out of stress or coercion, but because she wanted to divert attention from herself -- isn't the entire interrogation tainted because the cops lied about her being a suspect from the get go? To me, this is similar to the idea that the 3rd memorale is part of the same poisoned well -- yes she wrote it while not being questioned by the police, but she wrote it in an attempt to correct what happened to her the night before, which was clearly unjust and violated both Italian law and ECHR protocols.

 

[Kauffer]

The concept of a suspect having a lawyer to represent them during questioning is not limited to the idea that they might say something to the police that would implicate them in the exact crime that the police suspect them of. The average person is not versed in the law, and, left to their own devices (especially under duress), can often make statements that end up being used against them for other crimes as well.

Absolutely right, Doug. This is exactly what the ECHR said in the Zaichenko and Pishchalnikov cases.

 

[Methos]

[...]

I am not familiar with the timeline of when everyone surrendered their phone. When did Knox first say Lumamba's name? Before or after the police saw the text message? This has to be established fact somewhere.

Afterwards, I think, this is what the investigators saw on her phone:

 

[bagels]

I imagine the police seeing "Of course, see you later." To a black immigrant of all people, just before the time of the murder, when Amanda said in her previous statement she was with her boyfriend all night, was a brilliant Sherlock Holmes moment for the motley crew.

 

[Dougm]

I imagine the police seeing "Of course, see you later." To a black immigrant of all people, just before the time of the murder, when Amanda said in her previous statement she was with her boyfriend all night, was a brilliant Sherlock Holmes moment for the motley crew.

I'm pretty sure this whole, sordid affair is a product of the Perugia police developing their list of "usual suspects":

1) Immigrants (especially dark skinned ones)
2) Immigrants on drugs
3) Sex crazed immigrants
4) Slutty and/or drugged out young people

They must have thought they hit the mother load when it looked like it was going to be "all of the above". And Amanda was the lynch pin that made it all happen! No wonder they were pissed when Raffaele refused to turn on her! "Just tell us that the slut and the African guy did it! We know you were just temporarily fooled by your hormones!"

 

[acbytesla]

I imagine the police seeing "Of course, see you later." To a black immigrant of all people, just before the time of the murder, when Amanda said in her previous statement she was with her boyfriend all night, was a brilliant Sherlock Holmes moment for the motley crew.

I have to wonder if anyone realized for even a moment that translated into English that this is a very common American idiom for "good bye"? Or was this really their consensus " Gotcha" moment?

 

[Dougm]

I have to wonder if anyone realized for even a moment that translated into English that this is a very common American idiom for "good bye"? Or was this really their consensus " Gotcha" moment?

It tends to be a powerful moment when humans think they have discovered facts that match their expectations. I think they had already decided what likely happened -- the text was just confirmation in their minds.

 

[LondonJohn]

It tends to be a powerful moment when humans think they have discovered facts that match their expectations. I think they had already decided what likely happened -- the text was just confirmation in their minds.

Absolutely. Confirmation bias can be extraordinarily powerful and persuasive if one doesn't take care to guard against it.

In the Kercher case, I think another extremely powerful factor was the desire on the part of the police and PM to "catch the perpetrators" quickly, professionally, skilfully and efficiently - the world's media had descended on Perugia and were watching the every move of the authorities, and at the same time, students and tourists were deserting Perugia in droves.

And another contributor to this pressure to "solve the crime" was, IMO, the fact that the Perugia authorities had badly bungled another not-dissimilar murder investigation a year previously, and had come in for serious criticism and mockery for their incompetence and sloppiness. This time round, they were determined to show the world just how brilliant and speedy they were at solving such a high-profile crime.

So, IMO, all of these things created something of a "perfect storm". I believe that when the police jumped to the incorrect conclusion that the break-in had been staged, and when they realised that of all the keyholders only Knox had a dodgy and unverifiable alibi, they quickly rushed to judgement that Knox was somehow involved. Then when they saw the text message exchange between Knox and Lumumba, and read what they mistakenly construed as an explosive message from Knox arranging a meeting with Lumumba on the night of the murder, confirmation bias and tunnel vision ran rampant and they fully convinced themselves that they'd cracked the case.

I actually think that the police and PM truly believed at first (i.e. between around 3rd-15th November) that Knox had played a subsidiary role in the murder, by allowing the true killer (Lumumba, in their minds) into the cottage, failing to intervene as Lumumba assaulted and killed Kercher, failed to report the murder to the authorities, and had attempted to cover for Lumumba by lying about spending the whole evening/night with Sollecito in his apartment. But once Lumumba was ruled out, the police ramped up Knox's involvement - possibly largely influenced by the improper conclusion that if Knox had lied to implicate Lumumba, she more than likely played a more active role in the murder. And then they drew Sollecito into the mix, courtesy of the bogus pseudoscience conducted by Stefanoni and Rinaldi/Boemia. And the rest, sadly, is history.