Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

Bonsegna is writing about when Knox was de facto a suspect if the law had been applied properly at the time.

It is reasonable to conclude, however, that real-time there had been a breakdown of command - not to mention the ambiguity between a lead investigator (Napoleoni) and the role of the PM.
Be careful not to read back into the situation what should have happened (Bonsenga) as opposed to those on the scene at the time who in their rush to judgment simply blew it on many levels.

Then again, the whole need for the second, 5:45 am statement is tacit recognition at the time that something about the 1:45 am statement needed fixing.

No. If the police were reporting to the prosecutor that they had succeeded in breaking Sollecito at 11:30, then Knox became a suspect at that time, well before her coerced false statement at 1:45.If the police were reporting to the prosecutor that they had succeeded in breaking Sollecito at 11:30, then Knox became a suspect at that time, well before her coerced false statement at 1:45. See "NYPD Blue" (TV show) interrogations, based on input from a NYPD detective (retired).

Perhaps because I was not clear about what is meant by "breakdown in command", this response doesn't address that issue. Not that I can see.

To address issues of break-down of command one might need to literally go through a time-line of each of the officers there - what did they know and when did they know it? What did they believe about "suspicion" and when did they come to that conclusion? A timeline for each....

Then again there is also the issue of reasonable discretionary actions of any one of them. I mean, maybe it was everyone in the dark until Ficarra stumbled upon the "See you later" message, and Ficarra used reasonable discretion to determine that in that moment, Knox moved from being simply "informed of the facts" to "suspect."

Either way, it now becomes clear the motive for Mignini begun at 2 am. His motive was to "fix" the 1:45 am memorale, which he knew was inadmissible. Machiavelli said on this very thread a few days ago that the 1:45 am statement WAS arrived at fairly and constitutionally, and usable in court. He denies that Mignini's involvement from 2 am onward was even part of the interrogation. But all this fails because they simply cannot have it both ways.

Everything everyone else says, except for Mignini, belies that the 1:45 am memorale is worth anything. As I said:

Then again, the whole need for the second, 5:45 am statement is tacit recognition at the time that something about the 1:45 am statement needed fixing.​

Mignini will fight that tooth and nail, as he has. He'll present the 1:45 am statement in a double-speak sort of way..... akin to the way Machiavelli once characterized the "legitimacy" of the 1:45 am document.... which Machiavelli described as arriving from a condition known as, "being strongly suspected."

However, getting back to the issue of a breakdown of command - there's another element to it. The PM could have been conducting that interrogation capriciously - not a capriciousness aimed at Knox and Sollectico per se - but one keeping the lower-placed cops as potential scapegoats.

The whole thing from Raffaele's arrival until the signing of the 5:45 am memorale looks like chaos, rather than an orchestrated entrapment. A rush to judgement because with Edda Mellas's arrival, they were about to run out of suspects - that they knew, pre-Rudy.

 

[Numbers]

Perhaps because I was not clear about what is meant by "breakdown in command", this response doesn't address that issue. Not that I can see.

To address issues of break-down of command one might need to literally go through a time-line of each of the officers there - what did they know and when did they know it? What did they believe about "suspicion" and when did they come to that conclusion? A timeline for each....

Then again there is also the issue of reasonable discretionary actions of any one of them. I mean, maybe it was everyone in the dark until Ficarra stumbled upon the "See you later" message, and Ficarra used reasonable discretion to determine that in that moment, Knox moved from being simply "informed of the facts" to "suspect."

Either way, it now becomes clear the motive for Mignini begun at 2 am. His motive was to "fix" the 1:45 am memorale, which he knew was inadmissible. Machiavelli said on this very thread a few days ago that the 1:45 am statement WAS arrived at fairly and constitutionally, and usable in court. He denies that Mignini's involvement from 2 am onward was even part of the interrogation. But all this fails because they simply cannot have it both ways.

Everything everyone else says, except for Mignini, belies that the 1:45 am memorale is worth anything. As I said:

Then again, the whole need for the second, 5:45 am statement is tacit recognition at the time that something about the 1:45 am statement needed fixing.​

Mignini will fight that tooth and nail, as he has. He'll present the 1:45 am statement in a double-speak sort of way..... akin to the way Machiavelli once characterized the "legitimacy" of the 1:45 am document.... which Machiavelli described as arriving from a condition known as, "being strongly suspected."

However, getting back to the issue of a breakdown of command - there's another element to it. The PM could have been conducting that interrogation capriciously - not a capriciousness aimed at Knox and Sollectico per se - but one keeping the lower-placed cops as potential scapegoats.

The whole thing from Raffaele's arrival until the signing of the 5:45 am memorale looks like chaos, rather than an orchestrated entrapment. A rush to judgement because with Edda Mellas's arrival, they were about to run out of suspects - that they knew, pre-Rudy.

No. The overall goal is planned. Call this the strategy, as in the orders of a commander such as a general during war. The way the goal is to be achieved - call this the tactics - is up to the lieutenants (colonels, majors, etc.) of the general.

It looks messy, but the confusion works against the enemy - in this case, the innocent "suspects" the police are trying to entrap. The police show no sign of confusion, only of ad-libbing tactics; it was Amanda and Raffaele who were confused.

ETA: Another analogy (for the peace-loving): Consider the Nov. 5/6 interrogation and subsequent events as improv theater. Mignini has called out for the actors (the police) to enact a certain situation, namely, getting evidence (of at least minimal credibility) on two suspects to allow them to be arrested. The police improvise their actions to fulfill that situation. Only Amanda and Raffaele are not told that they are the unwitting stars of the improvisation.

The second statement was coerced from Amanda because Mignini realized his actors, the police, had not quite gotten all the evidence he would need for minimal credibility of an arrest.

ETA2: Recall that the police chief (or other officer) stated "she buckled and told us what we already knew" (at least that is what the PIP claim; is there a source citation for this?)

 

[Annella]

ETA2: Recall that the police chief (or other officer) stated "she buckled and told us what we already knew" (at least that is what the PIP claim; is there a source citation for this?)

" Perugia police chief Arturo de Felice told reporters. "She buckled and made an admission of facts we knew were correct and from that we were able to bring them all in. They all participated but had different roles."


http://www.newsweek.com/perugias-extreme-sex-murder-97137

 

[toto]

No. The overall goal is planned. Call this the strategy, as in the orders of a commander such as a general during war. The way the goal is to be achieved - call this the tactics - is up to the lieutenants (colonels, majors, etc.) of the general.

It looks messy, but the confusion works against the enemy - in this case, the innocent "suspects" the police are trying to entrap. The police show no sign of confusion, only of ad-libbing tactics; it was Amanda and Raffaele who were confused.

ETA: Another analogy (for the peace-loving): Consider the Nov. 5/6 interrogation and subsequent events as improv theater. Mignini has called out for the actors (the police) to enact a certain situation, namely, getting evidence (of at least minimal credibility) on two suspects to allow them to be arrested. The police improvise their actions to fulfill that situation. Only Amanda and Raffaele are not told that they are the unwitting stars of the improvisation.

The second statement was coerced from Amanda because Mignini realized his actors, the police, had not quite gotten all the evidence he would need for minimal credibility of an arrest.

ETA2: Recall that the police chief (or other officer) stated "she buckled and told us what we already knew" (at least that is what the PIP claim; is there a source citation for this?)

I don't know if Barbie Nadeau counts, but she wrote on 15th November, 2007 in Newsweek:

"Initially the American gave a version of events we knew was not correct," Perugia police chief Arturo de Felice told reporters. "She buckled and made an admission of facts we knew were correct and from that we were able to bring them all in. They all participated but had different roles."

http://europe.newsweek.com/perugias-extreme-sex-murder-97137?rm=eu

 

[Numbers]

Annella and toto, thank you for supplying the source for the quote.

That's evidence enough for me that the interrogation had been planned to give a particular end result. If Bill believes the police were confused during the interrogation, I counter that they were simply ad-libbing to reach the end result.

It may be that appearing confused or incompetent is something that Italian authorities such as the police cultivate as a defense mechanism when they plan to do something against the law. My pet theory is that, if they are then caught, they will plead that they are simple, incompetent, confused people, and not criminals. That way, Italy being a very humane country (sometimes), these poor police are simply pitied or promoted to a position where they can do less harm rather than prosecuted or fired.

 

[Numbers]

Annella and toto, thank you for supplying the source for the quote.

That's evidence enough for me that the interrogation had been planned to give a particular end result. If Bill believes the police were confused during the interrogation, I counter that they were simply ad-libbing to reach the end result.

It may be that appearing confused or incompetent is something that Italian authorities such as the police cultivate as a defense mechanism when they plan to do something against the law. My pet theory is that, if they are then caught, they will plead that they are simple, incompetent, confused people, and not criminals. That way, Italy being a very humane country (sometimes), these poor police are simply pitied or promoted to a position where they can do less harm rather than prosecuted or fired.

On its face, de Felice's statement means that the police suspected Amanda, Raffaele and Patrick before the interrogation on Nov. 5/6, 2007.

But it does not explain what objective evidence led the police to suspect them, or state that there was such evidence.

The police suspected them, and then conducted the interrogation to coerce the evidence that would (falsely) justify the arrests. It's the way the interrogation was done that constitutes the official misconduct. There was no evidence that a reasonable person would conclude justified the arrests before the coercive interrogation. As the Marasca CSC panel motivation report indicates, the motivation for the police - and prosecutor - included a desire to "solve" the case as quickly as possible. This motivation is what justified the "suspicions" of the police before the interrogation. They decided, for example, to completely neglect the downstairs crime scene. And without any objective evidence, they decided that the break-in was staged. Therefore, an inside job. Therefore, one of the flatmates was involved. Which one had the weakest alibi? Which one was the foreigner, barely able to speak Italian? Which one may have seemed very trusting and naive? Amanda. Therefore, she was suspected.

 

[acbytesla]

Annella and toto, thank you for supplying the source for the quote.

That's evidence enough for me that the interrogation had been planned to give a particular end result. If Bill believes the police were confused during the interrogation, I counter that they were simply ad-libbing to reach the end result.

It may be that appearing confused or incompetent is something that Italian authorities such as the police cultivate as a defense mechanism when they plan to do something against the law. My pet theory is that, if they are then caught, they will plead that they are simple, incompetent, confused people, and not criminals. That way, Italy being a very humane country (sometimes), these poor police are simply pitied or promoted to a position where they can do less harm rather than prosecuted or fired.

I have to wonder if De Felice was just grandstanding, but that remark sure bit him in the ass. It's very hard to argue that everything wasn't generally planned with both Giobbi and De Felice's remarks. Still, if they really planned to interrogate Amanda why wasn't Donino called in earlier?

 

[Desert Fox]

I don't see why it is not clear that before the "interview" ever started, it was the interrogation of a suspect. Otherwise, they would have just let Amanda do her homework.

 

[Numbers]

I have to wonder if De Felice was just grandstanding, but that remark sure bit him in the ass. It's very hard to argue that everything wasn't generally planned with both Giobbi and De Felice's remarks. Still, if they really planned to interrogate Amanda why wasn't Donino called in earlier?

Because the execution of the plan was improv. Only the goal was set.

Probably interrogating Amanda - a beginning speaker of Italian - with people who only spoke Italian and who claimed she was lying and protecting someone - statements she may have understood well enough - was intended to, or had the effect of, intimidating her.

Can you imagine being interrogated - accused aggressively of a crime - in a language you barely knew, when you knew yourself to be innocent, and before the interrogation began trusted fully the police interrogating you? And you didn't even know you had the right to remain silent. And when you didn't remember as required, you were slapped. Not too hard - but it's a warning.

 

[LondonJohn]

On its face, de Felice's statement means that the police suspected Amanda, Raffaele and Patrick before the interrogation on Nov. 5/6, 2007.

But it does not explain what objective evidence led the police to suspect them, or state that there was such evidence.

The police suspected them, and then conducted the interrogation to coerce the evidence that would (falsely) justify the arrests. It's the way the interrogation was done that constitutes the official misconduct. There was no evidence that a reasonable person would conclude justified the arrests before the coercive interrogation. As the Marasca CSC panel motivation report indicates, the motivation for the police - and prosecutor - included a desire to "solve" the case as quickly as possible. This motivation is what justified the "suspicions" of the police before the interrogation. They decided, for example, to completely neglect the downstairs crime scene. And without any objective evidence, they decided that the break-in was staged. Therefore, an inside job. Therefore, one of the flatmates was involved. Which one had the weakest alibi? Which one was the foreigner, barely able to speak Italian? Which one may have seemed very trusting and naive? Amanda. Therefore, she was suspected.

This is exactly the type of improper deductive process that I've long maintained occurred among the police and PM.

I think that as perhaps early as 2nd November, the police and PM had already convinced themselves (wrongly) that the break-in had been staged. And then, as you point out above, they inferred that the killer would have had to have been let into the cottage in order for there have been a need to stage a break in after the murder. They seem to have quickly ruled out the idea of Kercher letting the killer in herself, perhaps because they concluded that anyone doing a post-murder staging of a break-in (and the clean-up of the crime scene that they also wrongly thought had taken place) would have had to feel safe and comfortable hanging around in the cottage after the murder - they surmised that a "stranger killer" would have instinctively wanted to get as far away as quickly as possible, so that in itself pointed to someone who had a viable reason to be at the cottage.

And when they put all of that together, it pointed to a keyholder to the cottage being deeply involved in the murder - either the keyholder had let in the killer and conspired to clean things up and misdirect the police after the murder, or the keyholder was in fact directly involved in the murder. Romanelli and Mezetti had verifiable alibis for the whole evening.night of the murder, but Knox had an unverifiable alibi of having spent the evening/night with Sollecito in his apartment. The police/PM quickly concluded that it was therefore eminently possible that Knox was the keyholder they were looking for, that she was lying about her whereabouts on the night of the murder, and that Sollecito was either lying to protect her or Sollecito was also involved. The fact that Knox had acted in an unorthodox and (arguably) somewhat inappropriate fashion in the hours and days following the murder only helped harden the views of the police/PM towards her.

And then the police started trailing Knox, tapping her cellphone and obtaining her cellphone records from around the time of the murder. Knox had not mentioned any phone/text exchanges on the evening/night of the murder in her interviews with police, but now the police could see a text exchange with a number at a critical point on the evening of the murder. It's hard to know whether the police were able to identify the correspondent with whom Knox was exchanging these messages simply from the cellphone number, but IMO it's a racing certainty that the police became convinced that this text exchange was extremely important, and that Knox and the correspondent were now key suspects. This would have all happened by either late on 4th November or early on 5th November.

Another thing then happened on the afternoon of the 5th November which solidified the belief of the police/PM in their theory of the crime. The police surveillance team witnessed Knox having a serious conversation with Lumumba outside the University for Foreigners. Whether the police had by this point identified Lumumba as the correspondent in the text exchanges on the evening of the murder, the police/PM clearly decided that this conversation on the steps of the university was a surreptitious meeting between Knox and Lumumba to discuss what Knox had and had not told the police, and whether or not they were in the clear, etc.

So I am of the very, very firm belief that by the early evening of 5th November 2007, the police and PM had concluded that Knox was deeply involved in the murder - that she had either 1) assisted the killer (whom I think they by now "knew" to be Lumumba) by letting him into the cottage, cleaning up and staging the break-in after the murder, and lying to police to protect him after the murder, or 2) participated in some way in the murder itself, alongside Lumumba, and then conducted the clean-up and staged break-in. And I think the police/PM believed that the way to entrap Knox was via Sollecito: they believed that it was most likely that Sollecito wasn't anywhere near as deeply involved as Knox, and therefore had far, far less to lose by "coming clean" and telling the truth. I am confident that at this point the police/PM believed the most likely scenario was that Knox had asked Sollecito to lie to the police by saying that she was with him in his apartment all evening/night, and that Sollecito had agreed to lie because he was either besotted with her or afraid of her.

And then...... the police/PM learned that Knox's mother was en route to Perugia, and was due to arrive on 6th November. The police and PM were suddenly placed under huge time pressure, since at that point they had no mechanism to compel Knox to remain in Italy, and they were pretty certain that Knox's mother would be taking her back to Seattle as soon as possible, maybe even leaving on 6th November.

So now time was of the essence. The police needed to garner sufficient evidence to arrest and detain Knox before she had a chance to leave Italy. Therefore a plan had to be constructed and enacted immediately. The Perugia police HQ was staffed up with detectives of the night of 5th/6th November. The plan (IMO) was to call Sollecito in on his own, and get him to admit that he'd been lying to protect Knox. The police would tell Sollecito that they had solid evidence that Knox was involved in the murder, and that Sollecito was only placing himself in grave legal jeopardy by lying to protect her. Since the police genuinely thought that Sollecito HAD been lying to protect Knox, and that Knox HAD left Sollecito's presence that night to play her part in the murder, they reasoned that it wouldn't take much for Sollecito to "tell the truth" and abandon Knox.

And once that happened, the police would have all they needed to go out and arrest Knox and bring her in. I strongly suspect that the original plan was that a surveillance team would have been keeping close tabs on Knox's location, such that an arrest squad would be able to go directly to her location (probably having tipped off the local media in advance, so that there were film crews on hand to capture the triumphant moment of arrest) and arrest her with maximum fanfare. The police would then confront Knox with Sollecito's withdrawal of his support for her alibi, give her the good old "Sophie's Choice" along the lines of "tell us the truth and things will be a lot easier for you; keep lying to us and you'll be looking at 30 years in prison", and Knox in turn would break. The arrest squad would then go out and arrest Lumumba in turn.

Of course things didn't quite turn out as per the plan. Knox came in with Sollecito, thus denying the police the chance to arrest her in the glare of the the TV lights from Sollecito's apartment (or wherever she was at the time). And Sollecito didn't "buckle" in the way the police had assumed he would - on account of the fact that he actually WASN'T lying to protect Knox. Instead, the police hammered away at him until he became so confused that he mixed up dates and amalgamated events from the night of the murder with those of the night before the murder (Halloween). But the police decided that was good enough for them to move onto the next phase.

Then Knox was brought in for interrogation. Very quickly, the final element in the "perfect storm" hove into view: the examination of the content of Knox's final text message to Lumumba on the evening of the murder. It was cast-iron confirmation to the police that Knox truly had arranged to meet up with Lumumba that night, and that she'd lied to them by having claimed to be with Sollecito in his apartment all evening/night. All the police now needed to do was to use all means necessary (and all unrecorded, of course....) to get Knox to "buckle" and "tell them what they already knew to be correct".

Poor old Artur de Felice didn't realise just what a gigantic mistake he made when he triumphantly crowed to journalists in that hubris-packed press conference the following morning that the police had, in effect, already solved the case before Knox even entered the interrogation room late in the evening of 5th November, that the police already knew Knox had been lying to them up to that point, and that the police got Knox to "buckle" and tell them what they already knew to be correct. Never was the phrase "pride comes before a fall" so apt........

 

[LondonJohn]

I have to wonder if De Felice was just grandstanding, but that remark sure bit him in the ass. It's very hard to argue that everything wasn't generally planned with both Giobbi and De Felice's remarks. Still, if they really planned to interrogate Amanda why wasn't Donino called in earlier?

As I wrote in my crazy-long post(!) that crossed with yours, I believe the initial plan was to bring Sollecito in alone first, and get him to drop his support of Knox's alibi. Then the arrest squad would go out, all sirens and lights blaring, to pick up Knox (they'd know exactly where she was because she'd have been under surveillance). I suspect therefore that they didn't expect to have even started interrogating Knox until well past midnight, and they'd have had time enough to call in Donnino as soon as the order went out to arrest Knox.

Another possible point to consider is that perhaps the police deliberately didn't want to have Donnino called in ahead of time because it might be construed that the police were expecting in advance to be bringing in Knox that night for interrogation. I suspect the police had decided that the story they'd want to present was that they brought in Sollecito, and as he was questioned in more detail Sollecito suddenly dropped his support for Knox, and that this was what prompted the arrest and interrogation of Knox. If Donnino had been in the police HQ before (or while) the interrogation of Sollecito was being conducted, it would be somewhat difficult for the police to pretend that they had no pre-planned intent to arrest and "break" Knox that night.

 

[acbytesla]

Because the execution of the plan was improv. Only the goal was set.

Probably interrogating Amanda - a beginning speaker of Italian - with people who only spoke Italian and who claimed she was lying and protecting someone - statements she may have understood well enough - was intended to, or had the effect of, intimidating her.

Can you imagine being interrogated - accused aggressively of a crime - in a language you barely knew, when you knew yourself to be innocent, and before the interrogation began trusted fully the police interrogating you? And you didn't even know you had the right to remain silent. And when you didn't remember as required, you were slapped. Not too hard - but it's a warning.

Good point. I have never had any doubt that there was a general plan to break Amanda that night especially with the number of detectives on hand. But I also believe as you are saying it was a "general and maybe something of an unspoken plan. That provides as Oliver North would say "plausible deniability".

I'm just picking at this making sure the reasoning is sound.

 

[LondonJohn]

" Perugia police chief Arturo de Felice told reporters. "She buckled and made an admission of facts we knew were correct and from that we were able to bring them all in. They all participated but had different roles."


http://www.newsweek.com/perugias-extreme-sex-murder-97137

NO NO NO NO!!!!!! The truth, as reliably supplied by Baghdad Bob Machiavelli, is that de Felice said nothing of the sort, and certainly nothing that in any way implied that the police already "knew the truth" before Knox even entered the interrogation room that night, and that they got her to "buckle" and tell them the "truth" they already knew. No siree!!

And since I trust Machiavelli implicitly on this point - as I do on everything he writes - I can only conclude that there was some sort of disgraceful conspiracy among the multinational media who were there at that presser and who heard de Felice's words to misrepresent him in a shocking and effectively libellous manner. Here's another participant to this grand conspiracy, with reporters present at the presser, and who report the same basic meaning of de Felice's words, in direct quotes, no less:


He (de Felice) said that the three had continually changed their stories and that things “just didn’t add up.” He explained:”Initially the American gave a version of events which we knew was not correct. “She buckled and made an admission of facts that we knew were correct and from that we were able to bring them in.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/24505/I-heard-Meredith-scream-says-girl-in-student-sex-murder

 

[Bill Williams]

NO NO NO NO!!!!!! The truth, as reliably supplied by Baghdad Bob Machiavelli, is that de Felice said nothing of the sort, and certainly nothing that in any way implied that the police already "knew the truth" before Knox even entered the interrogation room that night, and that they got her to "buckle" and tell them the "truth" they already knew. No siree!!

And since I trust Machiavelli implicitly on this point - as I do on everything he writes - I can only conclude that there was some sort of disgraceful conspiracy among the multinational media who were there at that presser and who heard de Felice's words to misrepresent him in a shocking and effectively libellous manner. Here's another participant to this grand conspiracy, with reporters present at the presser, and who report the same basic meaning of de Felice's words, in direct quotes, no less:


He (de Felice) said that the three had continually changed their stories and that things “just didn’t add up.” He explained:”Initially the American gave a version of events which we knew was not correct. “She buckled and made an admission of facts that we knew were correct and from that we were able to bring them in.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/24505/I-heard-Meredith-scream-says-girl-in-student-sex-murder

IIRC Baghdad Bob Machiavelli also claims that by the time Mignini got onto the scene (circa 2 am) that the interrogation was over. Mach has also quibbled about the illegality/usability of the 1:45 am statement, assuring us that what the Italian Cassazione ruled in 2008 about it has some sort of nuance available only to those who hold their mouth funny, squint and check under the bed for Masons.

But getting back to Numbers..... my opinion is that the PLE screwed up at the interrogation because of a breakdown of command, not because of chaos. But I don't know how far I will defend that opinion.

 

[toto]

NO NO NO NO!!!!!! The truth, as reliably supplied by Baghdad Bob Machiavelli, is that de Felice said nothing of the sort, and certainly nothing that in any way implied that the police already "knew the truth" before Knox even entered the interrogation room that night, and that they got her to "buckle" and tell them the "truth" they already knew. No siree!!

And since I trust Machiavelli implicitly on this point - as I do on everything he writes - I can only conclude that there was some sort of disgraceful conspiracy among the multinational media who were there at that presser and who heard de Felice's words to misrepresent him in a shocking and effectively libellous manner. Here's another participant to this grand conspiracy, with reporters present at the presser, and who report the same basic meaning of de Felice's words, in direct quotes, no less:


He (de Felice) said that the three had continually changed their stories and that things “just didn’t add up.” He explained:”Initially the American gave a version of events which we knew was not correct. “She buckled and made an admission of facts that we knew were correct and from that we were able to bring them in.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/24505/I-heard-Meredith-scream-says-girl-in-student-sex-murder

The Mirror also quoted de Felice:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/judge-considers-ruling-on-meredith-suspects-519421

Machiavelli said his paraphrase was:
"we were aware (we knew, we understood) that the accounts this witness was giving us before were false; we also understand (we know) that there is something true in the new version that she presented".

it seems that he wishes to diminish the forthright nature of de Felice's words by using the words "something true" rather than "facts we knew were correct", but there does not seem much difference really. The Telegraph reported: "She crumbled. She confessed. There were holes in her alibi. Her mobile phone records were crucial."
I did try to find an Italian primary source but couldn't. It is a shame Machiavelli couldn't either. Not that I necessarily see him as a great sage. After Amanda Knox submitted her application to the ECHR in November 2013, he wrote, as Yummi:

Personally I don’t believe any complained to the ECHR was lodged on Nov 25, because that would be beyond the terms if the proceeding of reference was the calunnia conviction.

The conviction for simple calunnia has become final more than 6 month ago, and there is no further legal step beyond the publication of the Supreme Court report from which you could count time. So there is no way: a submission to the ECHR would on Nov. 25. 2013 about that proceedings would be inadmissible.

Moreover, Knox’s lawyers were in Florence on Nov. 25.
The claim about an ECHR submision is a lie.

Which is telling about the current strategic status and options of the pro-Knox side.
It is also telling about ethics of alleged Anglophone news sources reporting about it or pasting it without any verification.

By the way, no news about a complaint to the ECHR has been reported by any media source in Italy as far as I know.​

 

[Numbers]

IIRC Baghdad Bob Machiavelli also claims that by the time Mignini got onto the scene (circa 2 am) that the interrogation was over. Mach has also quibbled about the illegality/usability of the 1:45 am statement, assuring us that what the Italian Cassazione ruled in 2008 about it has some sort of nuance available only to those who hold their mouth funny, squint and check under the bed for Masons.

But getting back to Numbers..... my opinion is that the PLE screwed up at the interrogation because of a breakdown of command, not because of chaos. But I don't know how far I will defend that opinion.

So you believe that none of the police were familiar with the Code of Criminal Procedure provisions - similar but actually stronger than US Miranda warnings, more like those in the UK - that governs how they are required to deal with suspects? Even though, according to Giobbi, the top police were monitoring the interrogation from a room within the police station? And Napoleone was involved? And Mignini was called at 11:30, according to the Boninsegna MR?

 

[Numbers]

The Mirror also quoted de Felice:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/judge-considers-ruling-on-meredith-suspects-519421

Machiavelli said his paraphrase was:
"we were aware (we knew, we understood) that the accounts this witness was giving us before were false; we also understand (we know) that there is something true in the new version that she presented".

it seems that he wishes to diminish the forthright nature of de Felice's words by using the words "something true" rather than "facts we knew were correct", but there does not seem much difference really. The Telegraph reported: "She crumbled. She confessed. There were holes in her alibi. Her mobile phone records were crucial."
I did try to find an Italian primary source but couldn't. It is a shame Machiavelli couldn't either. Not that I necessarily see him as a great sage. After Amanda Knox submitted her application to the ECHR in November 2013, he wrote, as Yummi:

Personally I don’t believe any complained to the ECHR was lodged on Nov 25, because that would be beyond the terms if the proceeding of reference was the calunnia conviction.

The conviction for simple calunnia has become final more than 6 month ago, and there is no further legal step beyond the publication of the Supreme Court report from which you could count time. So there is no way: a submission to the ECHR would on Nov. 25. 2013 about that proceedings would be inadmissible.

Moreover, Knox’s lawyers were in Florence on Nov. 25.
The claim about an ECHR submision is a lie.

Which is telling about the current strategic status and options of the pro-Knox side.
It is also telling about ethics of alleged Anglophone news sources reporting about it or pasting it without any verification.

By the way, no news about a complaint to the ECHR has been reported by any media source in Italy as far as I know.​

I suggest that some of the ISF posters who claimed expertise in Italian law or ECHR were not correct in the statements they posted about those topics.

At one point I recall a number of ISF posters doubted that Amanda Knox had submitted an application to the ECHR, even though she claimed she had on her blog. And it seems some of these posters had not read the ECHR information on what is required to have an admissible application. The 6 month time limit is based upon the publication date of the final motivation report, for example, not that of the final short-form verdict. In some cases applicable to certain types or circumstance of violations of rights, the 6 month limit does not even apply. Also, applications to ECHR are by mail only; the geographic locations of the applicant and the lawyers are totally irrelevant (except that they should have mail service available).

 

[Bill Williams]

IIRC Baghdad Bob Machiavelli also claims that by the time Mignini got onto the scene (circa 2 am) that the interrogation was over. Mach has also quibbled about the illegality/usability of the 1:45 am statement, assuring us that what the Italian Cassazione ruled in 2008 about it has some sort of nuance available only to those who hold their mouth funny, squint and check under the bed for Masons.

But getting back to Numbers..... my opinion is that the PLE screwed up at the interrogation because of a breakdown of command, not because of chaos. But I don't know how far I will defend that opinion.

So you believe that none of the police were familiar with the Code of Criminal Procedure provisions - similar but actually stronger than US Miranda warnings, more like those in the UK - that governs how they are required to deal with suspects? Even though, according to Giobbi, the top police were monitoring the interrogation from a room within the police station? And Napoleone was involved? And Mignini was called at 11:30, according to the Boninsegna MR?

I, then, am explaining this poorly. Why? Because I am not saying that at all - and, frankly, am at a loss to explain why it would seem that I'm saying that.

A breakdown of command is seen when someone threatens to leave Raffaele in a pool of blood. A breakdown of command occurs when Knox is threatened with 30 years in jail, and is hit on the head. A breakdown of command occurs when an interpreter is allowed to act "as if a mediator", and according to Baghdad Bob, as a diplomat.

A breakdown of command happens when people do not know their roles and exceed their authority. Sometimes a commander can take advantage of that - all in the name of believing that if they actually DO get the perps, no one will complain that a murderer's rights have been violated.

And if it does go south, the commander can blame everyone else for that. If after a snafu the commander doesn't take personal responsibility for it, that is a breakdown in command. A commander who sues everyone in sight for his own lack of preparatory leadership, is not fit to command.

 

[Numbers]

I, then, am explaining this poorly. Why? Because I am not saying that at all - and, frankly, am at a loss to explain why it would seem that I'm saying that.

A breakdown of command is seen when someone threatens to leave Raffaele in a pool of blood. A breakdown of command occurs when Knox is threatened with 30 years in jail, and is hit on the head. A breakdown of command occurs when an interpreter is allowed to act "as if a mediator", and according to Baghdad Bob, as a diplomat.

A breakdown of command happens when people do not know their roles and exceed their authority. Sometimes a commander can take advantage of that - all in the name of believing that if they actually DO get the perps, no one will complain that a murderer's rights have been violated.

And if it does go south, the commander can blame everyone else for that. If after a snafu the commander doesn't take personal responsibility for it, that is a breakdown in command. A commander who sues everyone in sight for his own lack of preparatory leadership, is not fit to command.

All those things you point out as a break-down in command are standard old-school interrogation techniques. The police interviewing a suspect while pretending that person is a witness, threatening long sentences if there isn't "cooperation", offering "protection" or "leniency", claiming they know the facts and that the suspect is lying, a bit of roughing up - maybe more, depending on the suspect's apparent vulnerability to violence, getting an alleged co-conspirator to drop an alibi - or pretending that that has happened: these are all classical interrogation methods of "old-school" cops. Again, see NYPD Blue (a TV show) that had a retired NY police detective as advisor.

 

[Bill Williams]

All those things you point out as a break-down in command are standard old-school interrogation techniques. The police interviewing a suspect while pretending that person is a witness, threatening long sentences if there isn't "cooperation", offering "protection" or "leniency", claiming they know the facts and that the suspect is lying, a bit of roughing up - maybe more, depending on the suspect's apparent vulnerability to violence, getting an alleged co-conspirator to drop an alibi - or pretending that that has happened: these are all classical interrogation methods of "old-school" cops. Again, see NYPD Blue (a TV show) that had a retired NY police detective as advisor.

I don't know about NYPD Blue.

Reread Sollecito's account of his own interrogation. "Why are protecting that vache?" The whole reported behaviour of the cops in relation to him signals a breakdown. They had his shoes and all they could say about him, in Knox's 5:45 am memorale is that no one knows how he fits in.