Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

[Vixen]

There is a difference between Raffaele's testimony and what the police testified to. Why do you have to be so dishonest and obfuscate?

You, LoJo and Stacy are not familiar with the passive tense? I said, 'as testified in court'.


FYI A woman submitted a witness statement to the court and was in Seattle during the trial.

Testimony can be verbal or in writing.

Truth is, instead of admitting LoJo told a massive WHOPPER, you think you can detract from his dropping a bollock by focusing on my syntax.

 

[abaddon]

You, LoJo and Stacy are not familiar with the passive tense? I said, 'as testified in court'.

I suggest we are all familiar with the passive aggressive tense.

FYI A woman

Who?

submitted a witness statement

Then you can cite it but wont.

to the court

What court? You dont specify.

and was in Seattle during the trial.

There was a court in Seattle? You should have said.

Testimony can be verbal or in writing.

Honestly, I struggle with figuring out how anyone can be so obtuse. Testimony is not required to be either.Testimony is simply required to be submitted. It matters not a whit what the chosen media is.

Truth is, instead of admitting LoJo told a massive WHOPPER, you think you can detract from his dropping a bollock by focusing on my syntax.

I see. returning to the tawdry homebase, is it?

 

[Bill Williams]

You, LoJo and Stacy are not familiar with the passive tense? I said, 'as testified in court'.

You wrote "Yet both Raff and Amanda are adamant they did not awake until 10:00-ish and Raff had a lie-in until midday, and testified to this effect in court."

You're now lying about which tense you used.

You forget everyone of us can read back. We don't need you to modify your claims as suits you.

If you'll continually lie about these small things, what are we to believe about your overall ability to discern reality when it comes to this case?

 

[Vixen]

I suggest we are all familiar with the passive aggressive tense.

Who?

Then you can cite it but wont.

What court? You dont specify.

There was a court in Seattle? You should have said.

Honestly, I struggle with figuring out how anyone can be so obtuse. Testimony is not required to be either.Testimony is simply required to be submitted. It matters not a whit what the chosen media is.

I see. returning to the tawdry homebase, is it?

Ada of Kazakhstan.

 

[Vixen]

You wrote "Yet both Raff and Amanda are adamant they did not awake until 10:00-ish and Raff had a lie-in until midday, and testified to this effect in court."

You're now lying about which tense you used.

You forget everyone of us can read back. We don't need you to modify your claims as suits you.

If you'll continually lie about these small things, what are we to believe about your overall ability to discern reality when it comes to this case?

You knew perfectly well what I meant.

We all know Raff REFUSED to take the witness stand. Raff DECLINED to be cross-examined. Raff has never once retracted his police statement that he did not know where Amanda was between 20:45 and 01:00.

Why, Bill, why?

 

[acbytesla]

You, LoJo and Stacy are not familiar with the passive tense? I said, 'as testified in court'.


FYI A woman submitted a witness statement to the court and was in Seattle during the trial.

Testimony can be verbal or in writing.

Truth is, instead of admitting LoJo told a massive WHOPPER, you think you can detract from his dropping a bollock by focusing on my syntax.

This deception of yours is tiring. That IS NOT what you said.

YOU SAID

Yet both Raff and Amanda are adamant they did not awake until 10:00-ish and Raff had a lie-in until midday, and testified to this effect in court.

Where is the "as testified"? You know EXACTLY what you are doing. This isn't some honest mistake. It is another example of deception.

 

[Bill Williams]

You knew perfectly well what I meant.

We all know Raff REFUSED to take the witness stand. Raff DECLINED to be cross-examined. Raff has never once retracted his police statement that he did not know where Amanda was between 20:45 and 01:00.

Why, Bill, why?

There's no point addressing you on anything when you move the goalposts from what you said to what you "meant to say".

You even tried to change what you'd said, trying deceptively to slip in the passive tense, when you'd not used that tense at all.

All I know is that you accuse others of "lying" when you cut yourself all sorts of slack. This double-standard of yours is at the core of your online campaign.

 

[TruthCalls]

You knew perfectly well what I meant.

We all know Raff REFUSED to take the witness stand. Raff DECLINED to be cross-examined. Raff has never once retracted his police statement that he did not know where Amanda was between 20:45 and 01:00.

Why, Bill, why?

Diary of a chronic denier;

"Yet both Raff and Amanda are adamant they did not awake until 10:00-ish and Raff had a lie-in until midday, and testified to this effect in court."

"It is the statement Raff gave to the police about his wheareabouts on the night of the murder.."

"It was testified by the police. It forms part of the court documents."

"When he signed his police statement, that became a witness statement. A witness statement is court testimony if used in court, which it was."

"You, LoJo and Stacy are not familiar with the passive tense? I said, 'as testified in court'."

"You knew perfectly well what I meant.


Meanwhile, Vixen was asked for a cite regarding her "autodownload" claim and, as expected, came up with nothing.

 

[Stacyhs]

You knew perfectly well what I meant.

We all know Raff REFUSED to take the witness stand. Raff DECLINED to be cross-examined. Raff has never once retracted his police statement that he did not know where Amanda was between 20:45 and 01:00.

Why, Bill, why?

First, you claim that Amanda and/or Raff testified to something in court when Raff never testified in court.

Secondly, you claim that statements taken by the police and produced in court as evidence is the same thing as testimony. It's not.

Thirdly, you changed what you actually said and then claim we don't understand the passive tense.


So now, in your fourth attempt to wiggle out of your false statement, we are supposed to know what you meant, not what you wrote!





Why, Vixen, why?

 

[Bill Williams]

BTW Vixen.... Judge Nencini never once retracted that he found it as factual that Raffaele's DNA was found on the knife, yet you demand that the claim be regarded as a "typo".

Yet you also make demands that we make decisions on what Raffaele did or did not say in testimony, when even you admit he declined to testify.

Once again your double-standard is glaring.

 

[Bill Williams]

The evidence in this thread is clear. Vixen is here to make as many citationless claims as possible suggestive of guilt, allowing no room to maneuvre for anyone but herself.

"You know what I meant," is now the new standard of proof she demands others apply to her!

This is Vixen's Base 8 world.

 

[Numbers]

BTW Vixen.... Judge Nencini never once retracted that he found it as factual that Raffaele's DNA was found on the knife, yet you demand that the claim be regarded as a "typo".

Yet you also make demands that we make decisions on what Raffaele did or did not say in testimony, when even you admit he declined to testify.

Once again your double-standard is glaring.

Just a clarification. In an Italian court, according to Italian law, and just as in a US court, according to US law, a person who is an accused (Italian term) or a defendant (US term) in a criminal trial is not at all obligated to testify. Thus, the accused in Italy does not "decline"* to testify, but chooses not to volunteer to testify. In fact, the person who is co-accused of the same offense in a joint criminal trial shall NOT testify as a witness, according to CPP Article 197, unless that co-accused gave information prior to trial in a questioning and was warned in accordance with CPP Article 64.3C. Is there any documentation from the police that Raffaele Sollecito or Amanda Knox were ever given the warnings** required by Italian law prior to or during the questioning on Nov. 5/6?

*assuming that this word is intended to mean "politely refuse" or to "withhold consent".

** A) His statements can be used against him
B) He has the right to silence
C) Any statement he makes regarding the liability of another will possibly obligate him to become a witness against that person (which implies that any false accusation may be prosecuted as calunnia).

 

[LondonJohn]

Just a clarification. In an Italian court, according to Italian law, and just as in a US court, according to US law, a person who is an accused (Italian term) or a defendant (US term) in a criminal trial is not at all obligated to testify. Thus, the accused in Italy does not "decline"* to testify, but chooses not to volunteer to testify. In fact, the person who is co-accused of the same offense in a joint criminal trial shall NOT testify as a witness, according to CPP Article 197, unless that co-accused gave information prior to trial in a questioning and was warned in accordance with CPP Article 64.3C. Is there any documentation from the police that Raffaele Sollecito or Amanda Knox were ever given the warnings** required by Italian law prior to or during the questioning on Nov. 5/6?

*assuming that this word is intended to mean "politely refuse" or to "withhold consent".

** A) His statements can be used against him
B) He has the right to silence
C) Any statement he makes regarding the liability of another will possibly obligate him to become a witness against that person (which implies that any false accusation may be prosecuted as calunnia).

Totally accurate.

When one looks at those 5/6 Nov police interrogations of Sollecito and Knox in the proper context, I believe it's abundantly clear that the police (most probably with the knowledge and cooperation of the PM) thought Sollecito actually had nothing to do with the murder, but that he was lying to protect Knox by falsely (in the police/PM opinion at that time) stating that Knox had been with him in his apartment that night. Remember that at that point in time, the police and PM thought they'd expertly figured it all out: Knox had met up with another man* and taken him to the cottage where he had attacked, sexually assaulted and murdered Kercher, and Knox had subsequently staged a break-in to try to divert police and turn suspicion away from herself; Sollecito knew Knox had left his apartment to participate in the murder, but he (Sollecito) was covering up for Knox out of misguided loyalty/love/fear of abandonment/etc.


And therefore (IMO), as of the night of 5/6 Nov, the police and PM were planning to "persuade" Sollecito to "come clean" and finally admit that Knox had left his apartment on the night of the murder. I therefore very strongly suspect that, at that moment in time, the police and PM planned to use Sollecito (once he'd "turned" on Knox) as a prosecution witness in the subsequent trial of Knox and Lumumba. And that's why (IMO) they got the signed statement out of Sollecito and then arrested him and isolated him: they believed that Sollecito would become a fully cooperative witness once he was "free" of Knox, and once the police/PM carefully threatened him with charges of lying to the police (in his previous claims to the police that Knox was with him in his apartment on the murder night) if he didn't play ball.

Effectively, on the night of 5/6 Nov, (IMO) the key to the first part of the police/PM plan was nothing more than to get Sollecito to "buckle" and give them a statement to the effect that Knox actually did leave his apartment on the night of the murder. In effect, the sole purpose of eliciting that statement from Sollecito was so that they could then confront Knox with it - the plan then was that Knox would "buckle" in turn once she learned that her boyfriend had "told the truth" about her leaving his apartment. As of the night of 5/6 Nov, it was Knox and the "other man" that the police and PM were really after, IMO - and not Sollecito.

As such, I thing the police and PM actually weren't concerned at all with the lawfulness (or otherwise....) of the eliciting of Sollecito's statement, since the sole use of it (at that point) was to confront Knox with it. And if they never ended up charging Sollecito with a criminal offence (and as I write above, I believe the police/PM had no plan to bring charges against Sollecito at that point in time), then his 5/6 Nov statement would lawfully stand as a witness statement to be used against Knox. And once they'd had time to work on Sollecito and remove Knox from the equation (since she'd be locked away too), they could quietly release Sollecito from custody with the confidence that he'd testify in court to the effect that Knox left his apartment that night (especially with the threat of charges related to lying to the police hanging over his head if he didn't cooperate properly).

So, in summary..... I believe that, as of the night of 5/6 Nov 2007, the police/PM believed they truly had solved the murder. The step-by-step plan for the interrogations on that night was as follows: 1) get Sollecito in for interrogation, and get him to "admit" that Knox really had left his apartment that night; 2) pull Knox in for interrogation**, confront her with Sollecito's statement, and "persuade" her to "admit" to the "truth" in turn: that she'd met with Lumumba and taken him to the cottage where he'd assaulted and killed Kercher; 3) pull Lumumba in for interrogation.

There's (IMO) one other point of note about these interrogations and their legal ramifications. As I argue above, I think the police/PM weren't at all worried about any ramifications regarding Sollecito's interrogation and statement, since they expected (at that point in time) to be using Sollecito as a witness against Knox (and not charging him with any crime). But the situation with Knox was different. They needed Knox to "buckle" and tell them "the truth" in her interrogation - but they also expected to be charging and trying Knox for participation in the murder.

So the question of when/if Knox became a "suspect" was a very important one - the police and PM would have known that it would be massively unlikely that Knox's 1.45am police statement would ever be allowed to be used in a trial of her (and Lumumba), owing to the way in which it was procured. I believe the police and PM knew the situation full well, and that they (thought they) knew a cunning way around it. Their way round it was the insertion of PM Mignini into the situation, and his anodyne (and seemingly totally inconsequential) asking of Knox to repeat to him what she'd told the police. I believe Mignini (and the police) knew all too well what was happening here: Mignini was cunningly eliciting a "copy" of Knox's incriminating and incriminatory police statement, but - crucially - this time it could be construed as a "spontaneous declaration" by Knox to the PM - meaning it would be allowed as evidence in a trial of Knox (and Lumumba).

I think this was a carefully orchestrated (and possibly (probably?) well-practised piece of sleight-of-hand on the part of Mignini and the police. Fortunately the SC saw it for what it was, and disallowed the so-called "spontaneous declaration" from being used in the subsequent trial. But of course the egregiously bad decision was then made by Micheli and Massei to run the Lumumba criminal slander trial in the same court as the Knox/Sollecito murder-related trial - meaning that those trying the murder charges got to see/hear Knox's 1.45am statement in full anyhow.......


* the man with whom she'd exchanged the texts on the murder night - we still cannot know for sure whether the police/PM had already identified that man as Lumumba.

** I actually do believe that the plan as originally devised was for Sollecito to come into the police HQ on his own (without Knox), and then once Sollecito "buckled" and "admitted" that Knox had left his apartment on the murder night, the police would then summon Knox in. I suspect that the police and PM would have preferred Knox to have been nowhere near the police HQ when they were in the process of "persuading" Sollecito to change his story - since they were concerned that Sollecito was in Knox's thrall. But when Knox arrived at the police HQ together with Sollecito, it didn't really matter all that much in terms of the plan - Knox was just sequestered under close watch in a waiting room while Sollecito was interrogated.

 

[Numbers]

Totally accurate.

When one looks at those 5/6 Nov police interrogations of Sollecito and Knox in the proper context, I believe it's abundantly clear that the police (most probably with the knowledge and cooperation of the PM) thought Sollecito actually had nothing to do with the murder, but that he was lying to protect Knox by falsely (in the police/PM opinion at that time) stating that Knox had been with him in his apartment that night. Remember that at that point in time, the police and PM thought they'd expertly figured it all out: Knox had met up with another man* and taken him to the cottage where he had attacked, sexually assaulted and murdered Kercher, and Knox had subsequently staged a break-in to try to divert police and turn suspicion away from herself; Sollecito knew Knox had left his apartment to participate in the murder, but he (Sollecito) was covering up for Knox out of misguided loyalty/love/fear of abandonment/etc.


And therefore (IMO), as of the night of 5/6 Nov, the police and PM were planning to "persuade" Sollecito to "come clean" and finally admit that Knox had left his apartment on the night of the murder. I therefore very strongly suspect that, at that moment in time, the police and PM planned to use Sollecito (once he'd "turned" on Knox) as a prosecution witness in the subsequent trial of Knox and Lumumba. And that's why (IMO) they got the signed statement out of Sollecito and then arrested him and isolated him: they believed that Sollecito would become a fully cooperative witness once he was "free" of Knox, and once the police/PM carefully threatened him with charges of lying to the police (in his previous claims to the police that Knox was with him in his apartment on the murder night) if he didn't play ball.

Effectively, on the night of 5/6 Nov, (IMO) the key to the first part of the police/PM plan was nothing more than to get Sollecito to "buckle" and give them a statement to the effect that Knox actually did leave his apartment on the night of the murder. In effect, the sole purpose of eliciting that statement from Sollecito was so that they could then confront Knox with it - the plan then was that Knox would "buckle" in turn once she learned that her boyfriend had "told the truth" about her leaving his apartment. As of the night of 5/6 Nov, it was Knox and the "other man" that the police and PM were really after, IMO - and not Sollecito.

As such, I thing the police and PM actually weren't concerned at all with the lawfulness (or otherwise....) of the eliciting of Sollecito's statement, since the sole use of it (at that point) was to confront Knox with it. And if they never ended up charging Sollecito with a criminal offence (and as I write above, I believe the police/PM had no plan to bring charges against Sollecito at that point in time), then his 5/6 Nov statement would lawfully stand as a witness statement to be used against Knox. And once they'd had time to work on Sollecito and remove Knox from the equation (since she'd be locked away too), they could quietly release Sollecito from custody with the confidence that he'd testify in court to the effect that Knox left his apartment that night (especially with the threat of charges related to lying to the police hanging over his head if he didn't cooperate properly).

So, in summary..... I believe that, as of the night of 5/6 Nov 2007, the police/PM believed they truly had solved the murder. The step-by-step plan for the interrogations on that night was as follows: 1) get Sollecito in for interrogation, and get him to "admit" that Knox really had left his apartment that night; 2) pull Knox in for interrogation**, confront her with Sollecito's statement, and "persuade" her to "admit" to the "truth" in turn: that she'd met with Lumumba and taken him to the cottage where he'd assaulted and killed Kercher; 3) pull Lumumba in for interrogation.

There's (IMO) one other point of note about these interrogations and their legal ramifications. As I argue above, I think the police/PM weren't at all worried about any ramifications regarding Sollecito's interrogation and statement, since they expected (at that point in time) to be using Sollecito as a witness against Knox (and not charging him with any crime). But the situation with Knox was different. They needed Knox to "buckle" and tell them "the truth" in her interrogation - but they also expected to be charging and trying Knox for participation in the murder.

So the question of when/if Knox became a "suspect" was a very important one - the police and PM would have known that it would be massively unlikely that Knox's 1.45am police statement would ever be allowed to be used in a trial of her (and Lumumba), owing to the way in which it was procured. I believe the police and PM knew the situation full well, and that they (thought they) knew a cunning way around it. Their way round it was the insertion of PM Mignini into the situation, and his anodyne (and seemingly totally inconsequential) asking of Knox to repeat to him what she'd told the police. I believe Mignini (and the police) knew all too well what was happening here: Mignini was cunningly eliciting a "copy" of Knox's incriminating and incriminatory police statement, but - crucially - this time it could be construed as a "spontaneous declaration" by Knox to the PM - meaning it would be allowed as evidence in a trial of Knox (and Lumumba).

I think this was a carefully orchestrated (and possibly (probably?) well-practised piece of sleight-of-hand on the part of Mignini and the police. Fortunately the SC saw it for what it was, and disallowed the so-called "spontaneous declaration" from being used in the subsequent trial. But of course the egregiously bad decision was then made by Micheli and Massei to run the Lumumba criminal slander trial in the same court as the Knox/Sollecito murder-related trial - meaning that those trying the murder charges got to see/hear Knox's 1.45am statement in full anyhow.......


* the man with whom she'd exchanged the texts on the murder night - we still cannot know for sure whether the police/PM had already identified that man as Lumumba.

** I actually do believe that the plan as originally devised was for Sollecito to come into the police HQ on his own (without Knox), and then once Sollecito "buckled" and "admitted" that Knox had left his apartment on the murder night, the police would then summon Knox in. I suspect that the police and PM would have preferred Knox to have been nowhere near the police HQ when they were in the process of "persuading" Sollecito to change his story - since they were concerned that Sollecito was in Knox's thrall. But when Knox arrived at the police HQ together with Sollecito, it didn't really matter all that much in terms of the plan - Knox was just sequestered under close watch in a waiting room while Sollecito was interrogated.

Your scenario may be indeed what the police and prosecutor had intended.

But at the conclusion of the interrogation, they arrested Sollecito as well as Knox. And of course, they then went and arrested Lumumba.

From the arrest warrant, it appears that the evidence providing reasonable suspicion against Sollecito, in the viewpoint of the police, were alleged differences between his earlier and current statements, his shoes (the soles were "compatible" with the prints found in the cottage - the police did not claim a match - had they already known that the number of rings in Sollecito's shoe soles did not match those of the cottage prints?) and that he possessed a pocket knife that "in the abstract could be compatible" with Kercher's wounds (meaning there was no evidence of blood on the knife and the police knew it wasn't the murder weapon). Here's the section of the arrest warrant relating to Sollecito:

Regarding the elements against SOLLECITO, there are numerous incongruities verified in his first declarations in respect to his latest and the fact that, from preliminary observations, the shoe print of the shoe worn by SOLLECITO appears compatible in form with that found at the scene of the crime. Furthermore, the fact that KNOX declares to not remember what happened between the scream of the victim and her reawakening in the morning in Sollecito's bed who, furthermore, was found to have in his possession a pocket knife that could in the abstract be compatible, in type and dimensions (full length 18cm, of which 8.5cm being the blade), with the object that produced the most severe wound in the neck of the victim.

Source: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/case-files-reports/
Declaration of Arrest, Nov. 6, 2007

 

[Welshman]

With regards to the interrogation, we see Vixen's double standards on display. She accuses the supreme court of breaking Italian law but defends corrupt prosecutors who broke Italian law by denying access to lawyers, not taping the interrogations and not explaining Amanda and Raffaele their rights during the interrogations.

 

[Vixen]

This deception of yours is tiring. That IS NOT what you said.

YOU SAID



Where is the "as testified"? You know EXACTLY what you are doing. This isn't some honest mistake. It is another example of deception.

That should obviously read 'as', not 'and'. In any case, Raff's statement to the police he went home alone, Amanda came home at one and he surfed until three WAS court evidence.

Who is the true deceiver?

We note you haven't lifted a finger to correct LoJo's massive falsehood that 'Raff was referring to Halloween, not the murder night'.

So now Raff is bragging about how he got away with it on Facebook groups. Yeah, buddy.

 

[LondonJohn]

That should obviously read 'as', not 'and'.

This is getting more and more pathetic.

If you change "and" to "as" in the sentence you wrote, you get the nonsensical:

"Yet both Raff and Amanda are adamant they did not awake until 10:00-ish and Raff had a lie-in until midday, as testified to this effect in court."

Quite clearly and obviously, you didn't "mistakenly" write "as" instead of "and" in that sentence. Just admit that you were wrong to have claimed that Knox and/or Sollecito "testified" about these matters, rather than this embarrassing twisting and turning.

In any case, Raff's statement to the police he went home alone, Amanda came home at one and he surfed until three WAS court evidence.

Wow. Correct. Note: it was evidence, not testimony. OK?

Who is the true deceiver?

I think we all know the answer(s) to that.

We note you haven't lifted a finger to correct LoJo's massive falsehood that 'Raff was referring to Halloween, not the murder night'.

That might well be because I didn't tell a "massive falsehood". You still seem unable to understand what i actually wrote. I invite you to go back and read it once again. I stated - totally correctly - that Sollecito was, in his police statement, accurately describing events/movements which (provably) took place on the night of Halloween, the night before the murder. I am well aware that Sollecito signed a statement saying that these were the events which happened on the night of the murder. What I'm suggesting is that Sollecito got mixed up - with the "help" of the police (who needed Sollecito to "confirm" to them that Knox had left his apartment on the night of the murder) - between the two nights. And, given that the events he recounts are provably the events which actually took place on Halloween night, this is, by any assessment, a wholly reasonable suggestion to make. Get it now?

So now Raff is bragging about how he got away with it on Facebook groups. Yeah, buddy.

You know what happens now, don't you? Yep: I (and others) ask you for evidence to support this accusation. Please either link to or cut-and-paste the exact words written by Sollecito in which he is "bragging about how he got away with it". Chop chop!

 

[Welshman]

Totally accurate.

When one looks at those 5/6 Nov police interrogations of Sollecito and Knox in the proper context, I believe it's abundantly clear that the police (most probably with the knowledge and cooperation of the PM) thought Sollecito actually had nothing to do with the murder, but that he was lying to protect Knox by falsely (in the police/PM opinion at that time) stating that Knox had been with him in his apartment that night. Remember that at that point in time, the police and PM thought they'd expertly figured it all out: Knox had met up with another man* and taken him to the cottage where he had attacked, sexually assaulted and murdered Kercher, and Knox had subsequently staged a break-in to try to divert police and turn suspicion away from herself; Sollecito knew Knox had left his apartment to participate in the murder, but he (Sollecito) was covering up for Knox out of misguided loyalty/love/fear of abandonment/etc.


And therefore (IMO), as of the night of 5/6 Nov, the police and PM were planning to "persuade" Sollecito to "come clean" and finally admit that Knox had left his apartment on the night of the murder. I therefore very strongly suspect that, at that moment in time, the police and PM planned to use Sollecito (once he'd "turned" on Knox) as a prosecution witness in the subsequent trial of Knox and Lumumba. And that's why (IMO) they got the signed statement out of Sollecito and then arrested him and isolated him: they believed that Sollecito would become a fully cooperative witness once he was "free" of Knox, and once the police/PM carefully threatened him with charges of lying to the police (in his previous claims to the police that Knox was with him in his apartment on the murder night) if he didn't play ball.

Effectively, on the night of 5/6 Nov, (IMO) the key to the first part of the police/PM plan was nothing more than to get Sollecito to "buckle" and give them a statement to the effect that Knox actually did leave his apartment on the night of the murder. In effect, the sole purpose of eliciting that statement from Sollecito was so that they could then confront Knox with it - the plan then was that Knox would "buckle" in turn once she learned that her boyfriend had "told the truth" about her leaving his apartment. As of the night of 5/6 Nov, it was Knox and the "other man" that the police and PM were really after, IMO - and not Sollecito.

As such, I thing the police and PM actually weren't concerned at all with the lawfulness (or otherwise....) of the eliciting of Sollecito's statement, since the sole use of it (at that point) was to confront Knox with it. And if they never ended up charging Sollecito with a criminal offence (and as I write above, I believe the police/PM had no plan to bring charges against Sollecito at that point in time), then his 5/6 Nov statement would lawfully stand as a witness statement to be used against Knox. And once they'd had time to work on Sollecito and remove Knox from the equation (since she'd be locked away too), they could quietly release Sollecito from custody with the confidence that he'd testify in court to the effect that Knox left his apartment that night (especially with the threat of charges related to lying to the police hanging over his head if he didn't cooperate properly).

So, in summary..... I believe that, as of the night of 5/6 Nov 2007, the police/PM believed they truly had solved the murder. The step-by-step plan for the interrogations on that night was as follows: 1) get Sollecito in for interrogation, and get him to "admit" that Knox really had left his apartment that night; 2) pull Knox in for interrogation**, confront her with Sollecito's statement, and "persuade" her to "admit" to the "truth" in turn: that she'd met with Lumumba and taken him to the cottage where he'd assaulted and killed Kercher; 3) pull Lumumba in for interrogation.

There's (IMO) one other point of note about these interrogations and their legal ramifications. As I argue above, I think the police/PM weren't at all worried about any ramifications regarding Sollecito's interrogation and statement, since they expected (at that point in time) to be using Sollecito as a witness against Knox (and not charging him with any crime). But the situation with Knox was different. They needed Knox to "buckle" and tell them "the truth" in her interrogation - but they also expected to be charging and trying Knox for participation in the murder.

So the question of when/if Knox became a "suspect" was a very important one - the police and PM would have known that it would be massively unlikely that Knox's 1.45am police statement would ever be allowed to be used in a trial of her (and Lumumba), owing to the way in which it was procured. I believe the police and PM knew the situation full well, and that they (thought they) knew a cunning way around it. Their way round it was the insertion of PM Mignini into the situation, and his anodyne (and seemingly totally inconsequential) asking of Knox to repeat to him what she'd told the police. I believe Mignini (and the police) knew all too well what was happening here: Mignini was cunningly eliciting a "copy" of Knox's incriminating and incriminatory police statement, but - crucially - this time it could be construed as a "spontaneous declaration" by Knox to the PM - meaning it would be allowed as evidence in a trial of Knox (and Lumumba).

I think this was a carefully orchestrated (and possibly (probably?) well-practised piece of sleight-of-hand on the part of Mignini and the police. Fortunately the SC saw it for what it was, and disallowed the so-called "spontaneous declaration" from being used in the subsequent trial. But of course the egregiously bad decision was then made by Micheli and Massei to run the Lumumba criminal slander trial in the same court as the Knox/Sollecito murder-related trial - meaning that those trying the murder charges got to see/hear Knox's 1.45am statement in full anyhow.......


* the man with whom she'd exchanged the texts on the murder night - we still cannot know for sure whether the police/PM had already identified that man as Lumumba.

** I actually do believe that the plan as originally devised was for Sollecito to come into the police HQ on his own (without Knox), and then once Sollecito "buckled" and "admitted" that Knox had left his apartment on the murder night, the police would then summon Knox in. I suspect that the police and PM would have preferred Knox to have been nowhere near the police HQ when they were in the process of "persuading" Sollecito to change his story - since they were concerned that Sollecito was in Knox's thrall. But when Knox arrived at the police HQ together with Sollecito, it didn't really matter all that much in terms of the plan - Knox was just sequestered under close watch in a waiting room while Sollecito was interrogated.

I feel the defense made a mistake in not exploiting what happened at the interrogation because it showed the case presented by the prosecution was riddled with contradictions and the prosecution could not come up with a coherent narrative of the roles played by Amanda and Raffaele in the murder.

When Raffaele was interrogated, he was not accused of directly taking part in Meredith's murder but simply covering up for Amanda. The statement prepared made no mention of Raffaele taking part in Meredith's murder. When Amanda was interrogated the police made no suggestion Raffaele being present at the murder and the statements prepared by the police made no mention of Raffaele and it was Lumumba who killed Meredith. The prosecution later claim Raffaele directly took part in the murder.

When Amanda was interrogated, she was not accused of directly taking part in Meredith murder only that she was present when Lumumba killed Meredith. The police change Lumumba to Guede and then change and then claim Amanda directly took part in the murder with Raffaele. Amanda is not accused of stabbing Meredith and the police make no accusation Amanda brought a knife to the cottage. If I remember correctly the statements prepared by the police made no mention of Lumumba stabbing Meredith. The police take a knife from Raffaele's apartment and claim Amanda stabbed Meredith. Mignini claims in an interview at the time of Hellman Amanda was directing the murder from the corridor which would make it impossible for Amanda to stab Meredith.

Amanda and Raffaele were supposed to have staged the break in. During the interrogations there is no mention of a staged break in and Amanda and Raffaele were not accused of staging a break in.

The Massei and Nencini report and PGP have argued the behaviour of Amanda and Raffaele was suspicious when they went to the cottage in the morning and not the behaviour of people who had innocently stumbled on a crime scene. If this was the case, why is it the police never made an issue of what Amanda and Raffaele did at the cottage and did not ask a single question regarding this.

 

[Mike1711]

That should obviously read 'as', not 'and'. In any case, Raff's statement to the police he went home alone, Amanda came home at one and he surfed until three WAS court evidence.

Who is the true deceiver?

We note you haven't lifted a finger to correct LoJo's massive falsehood that 'Raff was referring to Halloween, not the murder night'.

So now Raff is bragging about how he got away with it on Facebook groups. Yeah, buddy.

If errors makes others liars in the PGP then your error is a lie as well. Goose and gander. You should hold yourself to the standards you demand of others.

....and you didn't have a herd of police thumping an answer out of you when you told your lie...ummmm, error.

 

[bagels]

That should obviously read 'as', not 'and'. In any case, Raff's statement to the police he went home alone, Amanda came home at one and he surfed until three WAS court evidence.

Who is the true deceiver?

We note you haven't lifted a finger to correct LoJo's massive falsehood that 'Raff was referring to Halloween, not the murder night'.

So now Raff is bragging about how he got away with it on Facebook groups. Yeah, buddy.

Do you think maybe Raff did it with Rudy and tried to blame Amanda?