Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

[TruthCalls]

1. The fact that other alleles are found on the clasp cannot be a logical reason from which one could infer anything about the way Sollecito's DNA was on it. This is because of what Halkides called "the first axiom of DNA science": nothing about date and means of transfer of the DNA can be inferred from the presence of the DNA itself.
The extra alleles themselves do not tell anything about the way they have come on the item, and they cannot provide any information about how Sollecito's DNA came on it. Absolutely zero.

2. C&V cannot "rule" anything, while Hellmann's decision was definitively ruled illogical and null.

3. The external side of the door seems to be the area of interst (of speculation) by the defence. However the fact that Sollecito tried to kick down the door (allegedly "tried") itself may not provide a reasonable probability that a massive amount of Sollecito's DNA would stick on the external side of the door - or that any amount of it would.
I assume Sollecito did not spent time licking areas of the door surface.
In fact the problem is about the intrinsic extreme improbability of tertiary transfer, which is something that calls into play conditions that are intrinsically improbable: according to experiments requires conditions of presence of wet biological fluids or wet surface and only happens within the framework of a structured interaction between very small areas, of which one already has an abundant DNA presence - it could be detected sometimes only in cases where you already know that there has been a contact with some speific very small (square centimeters) area where it was already known there was DNA, under wet conditions, and in those extreme low probability conditions it still happens in a minority of cases.
In this case we don't even know if there was Sollecito's DNA on the external surface of the door, there is no reason to assume that there had to be DNA on the door, to think that the forensic's glove ever touched the door (which had been disassembled by that day btw), even less we have a reason to expect that this immaginary touch would have occurred on that specific square centimeter where Sollecito had left his hypothetical DNA, and even less we could assume that the hypothetical biological material in those conditions after 46 days could be "wet" that is in transferable conditions.
There is also no reason to expect this kind of alleged contamination with any degree of frequency, given if this type of transfer was frequent we should have found quite a number of other instances, not only of Sollecito around the apartment but also of Amanda Knox inside the murder room.

4. The SC anyway cannot assess this topic. They have no legal power and no mean to do it. Direct assessment of this matter is exclusive competence of courts of merits.

Let's not forget, anyway, that the bra claps is only a piece of circumstantial evidence. Sollecito had a number of other pieces of evidence against him, and evidence has to be assessed altogether.
And also, consider that the evidence against Knox adds itself to the evidence against Sollecito.



Nencini is absolutely correct. The (alleged) TMB negatives itself do not reduce at all the probabilities that luminol traces are blood, due to the properties of TMB and luminol (there is no known alternative substance that reacts to luminol but not to TMB, even less a plausible substance, they have the same false positives while luminol is more sensitive and more specific than TMB).
There is in fact no plausible alternative substance at all to explain the bare feet prints, no plausible alternative dynamic, and there are even other bare foot prints on the scene that are proven to be in diluted blood and to be related to the murder (but not showing to be related to Rudy Guede).

1. Very true, but they were there and that means they got there either through direct contact or secondary or tertiary transfer. Since it's unlikely that Meredith had sexual relations with 2-3 different men since last washing her bra we can assume it got there through transfer and that raises the possibility of contamination.

2. Playing word games? C&V concluded the results were unreliable. Hellmann's decision (sorry, opinion) was shared by M/B, and that was not only a ruling, but a final ruling.

3. Obviously you've not read up on secondary or tertiary transfer and what are good sources of human DNA. The amount of DNA transfered by touch dramatically increases as one perspires. Given a state of emotional alarm and physical exertion it is reasonable to theorize a signifiant amount of DNA was deposited on the door/frame/handle. There are several studies that show tertiary transfer is indeed possible entirely through touch DNA. You can try to diminish all you want what these studies have shown, but given that it has been proven possible it is not possible for you or anyone else to argue it couldn't have happened. But all of this is moot. Your entire argument is to turn the burden of proof upside down. There are acceptable protocols for the collection, storing, testing and interpreting DNA evidence and when those protocols aren't followed the results MUST be considered unreliable.

4. Apparently they can and did, as did the 1st Chambers SC, albeit with a different conclusion.

What other evidence against Sollecito? And while I won't get into the sheer lack of evidence against Knox, on what basis can you claim evidence specific to Knox has bearing on the totality of evidence against Sollecito?

See, this is a clear indication of the absurdity of your 'logic'. A negative TMB result is, for the most part, considered definfitive proof of the absence of blood. Even Stefanoni agrees on this point. That you think it "do not reduce at all the probabilities that the Luminol traces are blood" is (with all due respect, and I mean that...) blindly ignorant. Whether you think you can explain away the results, the results absolutely are very significant. But this is irrelevant. You continue to try to flip the burden of proof onto the defense. Luminol is a presumptive test, nothing more. It PROVES nothing. This is a scientific FACT. It is well documented that Luminol alerts an investigator to the possible presence of blood, but that a confirmatory test must be conducted to prove it. Further, even if it were proven to be blood (and let's assume proven to be human blood and not, say, cat blood) you still need to prove whose it is. So while you can embarrass yourself by trying to ignore the TMB results, you still have to deal with the fact that several of the samples had either no DNA or only Amanda's DNA. So how does that figure into your insistance that the traces were made with Meredith's blood?

 

[Numbers]

Don't suggest the SC could access the full trial record or assess the evidence, because they could not.

Are you claiming that your knowledge of Italian law is superior to that of the CSC judges?

Because the Chieffi CSC panel and the Marasca CSC panel each made many statements about the evidence.

Each CSC panel cited CPP Article 606.1E in its statements about evidence and the evaluation of evidence. Could the CSC judges know something about the meaning of that CPP Article that you are not including in your post?

Here's Article 606 in the Italian text:

Art. 606 - Casi di ricorso
1. Il ricorso per cassazione può essere proposto per i seguenti motivi:
a) esercizio da parte del giudice di una potestà riservata dalla legge a organi legislativi o amministrativi ovvero non consentita ai pubblici poteri;
b) inosservanza o erronea applicazione della legge penale o di altre norme giuridiche, di cui si deve tener conto nell'applicazione della legge penale;
c) inosservanza delle norme processuali stabilite a pena di nullità, di inutilizzabilità, di inammissibilità o di decadenza;
d) mancata assunzione di una prova decisiva, quando la parte ne ha fatto richiesta anche nel corso dell'istruzione dibattimentale limitatamente ai casi previsti dall'articolo 495, comma 2;
e) mancanza, contraddittorietà o manifesta illogicità della motivazione, quando il vizio risulta dal testo del provvedimento impugnato ovvero da altri atti del processo specificamente indicati nei motivi di gravame.2. Il ricorso, oltre che nei casi e con gli effetti determinati da particolari disposizioni, può essere proposto contro le sentenze pronunciate in grado di appello o inappellabili.
3. Il ricorso è inammissibile se è proposto per motivi diversi da quelli consentiti dalla legge o manifestamente infondati ovvero, fuori dei casi previsti dagli articoli 569 e 609 comma 2, per violazioni di legge non dedotte con i motivi di appello.

In Gialuz, Luparia, and Scarpa, CPP Article 606.1E is translated:

1. The appeal to the CSC may be lodged if it is based on the following arguments:
....
E) the grounds of the judgment are lacking, contradictory or manifestly illogical, when the defect results from the text of the appealed decision or from other documents of the proceedings specified in the arguments for the appeal to the CSC.

Can you explain the meaning of "the grounds of the judgment"? Does the judgment rely on evidence and the interpretation of evidence?

Hint: In English, "grounds" in this context means: an area of knowledge or subject of discussion or thought. In a legal context, in would include the discussion or reasoning of law and the interpretation of evidence, including the admissibility or inadmissibility of evidence.

 

[TruthCalls]

That's just your opinion, as there is no evidence the police investigation was bungled. Of course mistakes were made, but that is bound to be the case in any complex murder case with several hundred officers involved.

If it is true the police bungled the investigation, please point me to the public inquiry which has been set up in this matter.

It is a matter of record that M/B cites extreme incompetence on the part of the investigation. They conclude there might have been evidence of their involvement, but given how badly things were fouled there is no other option but to acquit without referral.

Exactly who would initiate a public inquiry? You presume there would be someone in Italy with a motivation to push for such a review. From my perspective, the only thing Italy was concerned about was saving face.

ETA: If M/B violated Italian law as you and so many other PGP like to claim then where is the public inquiry? Clearly a violation of Italian law by the Supreme Court would be far more worthy of a public inquiry than whether the local law enforcement bungled an investigation. You find the lack of public inquiry into the investigation is proof it wasn't bungled but a lack of public inquiry into the M/B ruling apparently doesn't prove it was within the law. Interesting..

 

[acbytesla]

From wikipedia:

Quote:
Isaac Newton (4 January 1643 – 31 March 1727) was, as considered by others within his own lifetime, an insightful and erudite theologian. He wrote many works that would now be classified as occult studies and religious tracts dealing with the literal interpretation of the Bible.

You can have the last word, as I don't want to upset Agatha.

Newton was one of the all time greats, right up there with Einstein. However, Newton's religiosity stopped him from completing his work. He attributed 'natural' and explainable phenomenon to God. I know you Brits will love this, it was a French scientist who filled in the holes. So it wasn't the church itself that had its head in the sand, it was Newton's attachment to the religion.

 

[Machiavelli]

Your claims distort the actual wording of the CPP Articles you cite.

CPP Article 350.1 states that the police shall follow the procedure provided for in Article 64, which calls for the presence of the defense lawyer during the questioning, prohibits any method that interferes with the free will or alters the ability to recall and evaluate facts of the person questioned, and requires three warnings to that person (1. his statements can always be used against him; 2. he has the right to remain silent; 3.if he makes any statement about facts concerning the liability of another, he will become a witness). According to Article 350.5, only at the scene or immediately after the crime has occurred may the person be questioned without a lawyer, but the information gained without the lawyer present may not be recorded or used (for trial).
(...)

Article 64 does not provide an option for the police to interrogate a suspect - the police cannot interrogate formal suspects (or at least not record such interrogation).

Limitations of art. 350 §5, instead, only apply to formal suspects, which Amanda Knox was not as her police questioning begun at about 23:00.
After she became clearly a potential suspect - albeit she was declared formally a suspect of murder onl at 8am - that is after 01:45, interview has halted and no summary information was subsequently collected.

At that point provisions of § 7 may kick in, spontaneous statements, which can be released and collected also in conditions of diminished defence rights and without a lawyer by a person who is already a suspect.

Definition of spontaneous statement:

Dichiarazioni rese, anche senza la presenza di un difensore, dal soggetto indagato che si sia presentato spontaneamente al funzionario di polizia per rendere le stesse, le quali non possono cosituire oggetto di lettura in dibattimento ex art. 350, comma 7.

http://www.brocardi.it/dizionario/5828.html

It will be up to the courts of merits to assess whether the statement was factually spontaneous, and anyway the law provides that those statements are not usable in the trial; also, the provisions of art.350 about formal suspects may apply also to people who were not formally declared suspect, if a posteriori we deem that the investigators at the time had already sufficient evidence to consider them suspects.

Summary jurisprudence:

http://www.brocardi.it/codice-di-procedura-penale/libro-quinto/titolo-iv/art350.html

 

[toto]

I said that I would not trust the list if I were an investigator. There would be no reason to assume it is truthful.
From this, I also assume there would be no point for an investigator in trying to obtain such a list, since the source woulbe not reliable.
I don't trust the list and that means I don't know if it's truthful or not - therefore I would never take it at face value, I would never assume that it's truthful.



Just a moment. What I can read in her diary is that she talks about her HIV test results at page 43, and she doesn't say anything about someone advising her to make a list. As far as I recall, she does not say someone advised her to write a list. She just goes on and writes a list.
Nobody could rule out in theory that the "vice-capo" suggested she made a list of sexual partners since he's obviously a pervert - but there is no record of that in her Diary. In particular there is no record of that prior of her writing the list. When she talks about the vice-capo in the context of the HIV test it's only later at page 50, and she only says he arranged another meeting with the doctor (who reassured her for a second time).

Yes, you are right. Amanda does not specifically write that in her diary. You are right to correct me. My memory was playing tricks on me and I was confusing reading her book with her diary entries, both of which I was reading last night.

Nevertheless I think there is justification for believing that that is quite probably what happened. This is because Amanda on an earlier date (Sunday, November 18th 2007) writes for nearly two and a half pages about Argiro and how along with other topics such as dna and fingerprints, he goes on and on in different ways about sex and getting information out of her:

The “vise-capo” guy is getting kind of weird. He says he looks at me like a daughter, but whenever I’m with him I always feel like he’s looking for something – like I’m some great mystery and there’s a double meaning behind all my words. That and he seems very interested in my sex life. and he’s constantly telling me I’m pretty. I don’t trust people who are always commentating on my looks.​

Amanda goes on for the next two and a half pages with much of the subject about sex in one way or another.

It is in her book (p213) – not the diary, I admit - that she says (to paraphrase) that Argiro was standing a foot behind her when she got the news about the HIV findings (on Nov 21) and said that she should have thought about the risk of infection before she slept with lots of people, and advised her to think about who she slept with and who she got it from.

Later in her Nov 22 diary entry she writes:

Another thing: a (sic) got a good talking to by the vince-capo today. He said that my roommate was telling people that I DEFINATELY (sic) have HIV and the guards were asking questions. So he sat me down with the doctor who said it was absolutely unsure and the test would almost definitely (sic) come out negative. He had a weird way of showing his support however. He said that he would most definitely have sex with me right now he was so sure that I had nothing to worry about. Then he joked about having me promise to have sex with him. Once again Ol’ vince-capo is hitting on me.​

In the book she writes (p214), after being advised to remember who she slept with :

Maybe he was trying to comfort me or to make a joke, or maybe he saw an opening he thought he could use to his advantage. Whatever the reason, as we were walking back upstairs to my cell, Argiro said, “Don’t worry. I’d still have sex with you right now. Promise you’ll have sex with me.”​

There are some inconsistencies in that it seems the diary indicates two visits to the doctor but the book seems to conflate the two visits into one. I don’t see this as sinister, just another example of memory playing tricks as it did to me when I made the mistake.

 

[Numbers]

It means the SC can be made cognizant on issues that could not be raised at the Appeals stage, insofar as they have become inferrable only subsequently. Those questions can be points of law that were created subsequently to the Appeals (ie. new jurisprudence) or circumstances that were unknown at the time of Appeals and that have an implication on legitimacy (not just on merits).

Wouldn't the Italian Parliament had used more specific wording if it meant to narrow the procedural law, CPP 609.2, as you say?

The Marasca CSC panel apparently does not share your legal views.

Has the Superior Council of the Judiciary or any other legal body in Italy criticized the Marasca CSC panel for its acquittal or its reasoning in its motivation report?

 

[TruthCalls]

And you know it is now a proven fact Amanda Knox was on the scene of murder, washed her hands from Meredith's blood, she heared Meredith's scream and it is incontrovertible that Meredith was killed by multiple persons. (Guede was not holding the murder weapon).
And all this, is definitive.

Oh for God's sake, will you PLEASE stop reciting this nonsense. These are NOT proven facts. There is NO EVIDENCE to support such claims.

The court references Amanda's statement to suggest she was present and heard Meredith scream. The same statement that Amanda retracted and which was proven false.

The court uses mixed DNA found in a 'full basin scrub' sample to then suggest Amanda washed blood from her hands. It is speculation, theory. It is NOT PROOF. Nothing proves Amanda's DNA wasn't already on the basin when the blood was deposited. It is expected her DNA would be there.

It is not incontrovertible that Meredith was killed by multiple persons. Examination of the injuries, as testified by seven expert witnesses, conclusively shows a lone attacker is entirely possible. There is NOTHING that PROVES multiple attackers.

And there is NOTHING that proves Guede was not holding the knife that killed Meredith. In fact, the evidence is entirely consistent with a single knife wielded by the one person for whom there is overwhelming forensic evidence of their presence - Guede.

That you need to keep claiming such things are proven and incontrovertible when it's so obvious they are not only tells me just how insecure you are of your arguments.

 

[Wattson]

And you know it is now a proven fact Amanda Knox was on the scene of murder, washed her hands from Meredith's blood, she heared Meredith's scream and it is incontrovertible that Meredith was killed by multiple persons. (Guede was not holding the murder weapon).
And all this, is definitive.

Is the final exoneration not definitive?

 

[TruthCalls]

Christianity isn't about challenging scientific theory, or gazing at the sunset, it is about following the 'Way'.

It's assinine to equate faulty scientific logic with Christians.

There is science and then there is faith. Claiming a Luminol positive trace was made with Meredith's blood despite a negative TMB test and no DNA from Meredith is faith, not science. The analogy is actually quite appropriate.

 

[Numbers]

Article 64 does not provide an option for the police to interrogate a suspect - the police cannot interrogate formal suspects (or at least not record such interrogation).

Limitations of art. 350 §5, instead, only apply to formal suspects, which Amanda Knox was not as her police questioning begun at about 23:00.
After she became clearly a potential suspect - albeit she was declared formally a suspect of murder onl at 8am - that is after 01:45, interview has halted and no summary information was subsequently collected.

At that point provisions of § 7 may kick in, spontaneous statements, which can be released and collected also in conditions of diminished defence rights and without a lawyer by a person who is already a suspect.

Definition of spontaneous statement:



http://www.brocardi.it/dizionario/5828.html

It will be up to the courts of merits to assess whether the statement was factually spontaneous, and anyway the law provides that those statements are not usable in the trial; also, the provisions of art.350 about formal suspects may apply also to people who were not formally declared suspect, if a posteriori we deem that the investigators at the time had already sufficient evidence to consider them suspects.

Summary jurisprudence:

http://www.brocardi.it/codice-di-procedura-penale/libro-quinto/titolo-iv/art350.html

This appears to be false based on the actual wording of CPP Article 64.

CPP Article 64 General rules for questioning

1. The suspected person, even if under precautionary detention or detained for any other reason, participates freely in the questioning, without prejudice to the measures necessary to prevent the risk of flight or violence.

Are you misstating the law in your posts? Each post of yours seems to be contradicted by the actual wording of the Code of Criminal Procedure in important details.

 

[js202]

Only

And you know it is now a proven fact Amanda Knox was on the scene of murder, washed her hands from Meredith's blood, she heared Meredith's scream and it is incontrovertible that Meredith was killed by multiple persons. (Guede was not holding the murder weapon).
And all this, is definitive.

...thing missing is the nervous tic.

Twitch. Er, twitch.

 

[LondonJohn]

That's just your opinion, as there is no evidence the police investigation was bungled. Of course mistakes were made, but that is bound to be the case in any complex murder case with several hundred officers involved.

If it is true the police bungled the investigation, please point me to the public inquiry which has been set up in this matter.

If it is true that the Marasca SC panel bungled its judgement (including, according to you and Mach, egregious and shocking breaches of law), please point me to the public inquiry which has been set up in this matter.

Over to you, Vixen!

 

[Machiavelli]

Yes, you are right. Amanda does not specifically write that in her diary. You are right to correct me. My memory was playing tricks on me and I was confusing reading her book with her diary entries, both of which I was reading last night.

Nevertheless I think there is justification for believing that that is quite probably what happened. This is because Amanda on an earlier date (Sunday, November 18th 2007) writes for nearly two and a half pages about Argiro and how along with other topics such as dna and fingerprints, he goes on and on in different ways about sex and getting information out of her:

The “vise-capo” guy is getting kind of weird. He says he looks at me like a daughter, but whenever I’m with him I always feel like he’s looking for something – like I’m some great mystery and there’s a double meaning behind all my words. That and he seems very interested in my sex life. and he’s constantly telling me I’m pretty. I don’t trust people who are always commentating on my looks.​

Amanda goes on for the next two and a half pages with much of the subject about sex in one way or another.

It is in her book (p213) – not the diary, I admit - that she says (to paraphrase) that Argiro was standing a foot behind her when she got the news about the HIV findings (on Nov 21) and said that she should have thought about the risk of infection before she slept with lots of people, and advised her to think about who she slept with and who she got it from.

In fact, the highlited sentence - which is missing in the diary - is also not credible, because a doctor would commit an extremely serious ethical violation of patient's right if he allowed a guard to stay in the room. I don't believe it. And it makes no sense.

Later in her Nov 22 diary entry she writes:

Another thing: a (sic) got a good talking to by the vince-capo today. He said that my roommate was telling people that I DEFINATELY (sic) have HIV and the guards were asking questions. So he sat me down with the doctor who said it was absolutely unsure and the test would almost definitely (sic) come out negative. He had a weird way of showing his support however. He said that he would most definitely have sex with me right now he was so sure that I had nothing to worry about. Then he joked about having me promise to have sex with him. Once again Ol’ vince-capo is hitting on me.​

In the book she writes (p214), after being advised to remember who she slept with :

Maybe he was trying to comfort me or to make a joke, or maybe he saw an opening he thought he could use to his advantage. Whatever the reason, as we were walking back upstairs to my cell, Argiro said, “Don’t worry. I’d still have sex with you right now. Promise you’ll have sex with me.”​

There are some inconsistencies in that it seems the diary indicates two visits to the doctor but the book seems to conflate the two visits into one. I don’t see this as sinister, just another example of memory playing tricks as it did to me when I made the mistake.

I don't think this enough for deducing that she probably wrote her list on the advice of Argirò. In fact, there is only evidence that the vice-capo is a pervert - which by the way makes him also quite easy to "blame" if one wants to make up details that didn't happen (or even in the event they did happen, he could be the only one to blame for "suggesting" something sexual with no need of a doctors conspiracy).
However - based on her diary information - I don't think there is any reason to believe the idea of the "list" came from the initiative of others than herself.

 

[LondonJohn]

And you know it is now a proven fact Amanda Knox was on the scene of murder, washed her hands from Meredith's blood, she heared Meredith's scream and it is incontrovertible that Meredith was killed by multiple persons. (Guede was not holding the murder weapon).
And all this, is definitive.

Ironically, all of the above were mentioned by the Marasca panel specifically because they WERE res judicata - inasmuch as they were part of the final judgements in the Guede trial process and the Knox criminal slander trial process.

And therefore the Marasca panel knew very well that it could take one of two routes in its judgement: 1) it could state what it knew to be the truth - that there was zero credible reliable evidence of even the presence of Knox or Sollecito in the cottage at/around the time of the murder, and that all the evidence was in fact entirely compatible with Guede acting alone - but then raise a number of constitutional issues related directly to the contradictions with res judicata in these other trial processes; or 2) it could just accommodate those related res judicata "facts" into its verdict - since even then it could show conclusively that there was still zero credible, reliable evidence upon which to convict either Knox or Sollecito of murder (and the other murder-related charges). It chose option (2), for probably obvious reasons.

 

[LondonJohn]

If Amanda had a false positive HIV test, then of course her Herpes may have been the cause. You can't know it was 'a simple childhood one'.

Nope. I've explained this already. Herpes is one of two viruses: HSV-1 or HSV-2. And the types of lab ELISA immunoassay that would, beyond doubt, have been used to test Knox for HIV in 2007 would, also beyond doubt, not have been capable of producing a false positive for either HSV-1 or HSV-2 (HIV is a totally different antigen with totally different associated antibodies, and the ELISA test specifically looked for proteins associated with HIV rather than HSV-1 or HSV-2).

In short, Knox cannot have received a false positive - from an ELISA test performed in Italy in 2007 - by virtue of carrying either HSV-1 or HSV-2. End of.

 

[toto]

In fact, the highlited sentence - which is missing in the diary - is also not credible, because a doctor would commit an extremely serious ethical violation of patient's right if he allowed a guard to stay in the room. I don't believe it. And it makes no sense.




I don't think this enough for deducing that she probably wrote her list on the advice of Argirò. In fact, there is only evidence that the vice-capo is a pervert - which by the way makes him also quite easy to "blame" if one wants to make up details that didn't happen (or even in the event they did happen, he could be the only one to blame for "suggesting" something sexual with no need of a doctors conspiracy).
However - based on her diary information - I don't think there is any reason to believe the idea of the "list" came from the initiative of others than herself.

We can agree to differ on that, but there was quite a lot of detail in the earlier diary entry I made reference to which indicated that, apart from his unprofessional interest in her, he did tend to try and beat her down or ask her about other aspects of the case, such as DNA and fingerprints. Unrelated to this, do we know who was responsible for leaking the diaries or providing the diaries so that her details could be published?

 

[LondonJohn]

We can agree to differ on that, but there was quite a lot of detail in the earlier diary entry I made reference to which indicated that, apart from his unprofessional interest in her, he did tend to try and beat her down or ask her about other aspects of the case, such as DNA and fingerprints. Unrelated to this, do we know who was responsible for leaking the diaries or providing the diaries so that her details could be published?

There's also the quote in that Mail piece which claimed that The Sun newspaper had obtained an admittance from Argiro that he had quizzed Knox about how many boyfriends she'd had in her life.

Now..... since there's absolutely zero operational reason why a prison officer would need to know how many partners a given inmate had had in his/her life, this on its own is a pretty gross (in both senses of the word) violation by Argiro (if The Mail's claim about the what Argiro said to The Sun is correct, of course). And I'd suggest that, if true, then in and of itself it would tend to support the idea that Argiro took an unprofessional and creepy interest in other, deeper aspects of Knox's relationship life too.

 

[Machiavelli]

This appears to be false based on the actual wording of CPP Article 64.

CPP Article 64 General rules for questioning

1. The suspected person, even if under precautionary detention or detained for any other reason, participates freely in the questioning, without prejudice to the measures necessary to prevent the risk of flight or violence.

Are you misstating the law in your posts? Each post of yours seems to be contradicted by the actual wording of the Code of Criminal Procedure in important details.

Do you think I am contradicted by the code of criminal procedure?
The word interrogation (interrogatorio) in the Italian Criminal Procedure only refers to a procedure of questioning a suspect carried on by a judicial authority, that is a Public Minister or a Judge.
Also the police may carry on an interrogatorio, but only as a proxy of a Magistrate that is on a written order from a PM or a Judge.
Police questionings are normally called sommarie informazioni, this term may replace the word interrogatorio when the police perfomrs them even when they are based on art. 64.
So an interrogatio ex art.64 is not an investigation activity; it is no police activity, it is a judicial activity. It is only performed by jurdiciaries or by authorities who act as proxies (with a mandate and written questions), and only of formal suspects. Police have no power and no discretion in those.
All this may only have to do with a person who is already a formal suspect. The interrogatorio in all these variants (art. 64) is basically meant in the Italian code as a defence right, it is a procedure by which the juddicial authority guarantees the person they accuse a right to respond.

The first interogatorio of Raffaele Sollecito was by Clauia Matteini on Nov.8, the first interrogatorio of Amanda Knox was by Mignini on Dec. 17.

Police questionings are called sommarie informazioni and the people interrogated within discretion of detective activities are not formal suspects - or if they are, they may be in the immediacy of the crime or anyway in the impossibility to have immediately a judicial authority and a lawyer, so in a condition of diminished defence but of urgency.
If they are already formal suspects, they may still release a spontaneous statement, this also can occur in conditions of diminished defence rights, but not necessarily in the immediacy of a crime.

It is also possible that it is acknowledged only later that a "police witness" was in fact already a suspect, this can re-assessed only later, in that event the provisions and limitations of usability of art. 350 apply to his spontaneous statements or to his questioning.

 

[Machiavelli]

We can agree to differ on that, but there was quite a lot of detail in the earlier diary entry I made reference to which indicated that, apart from his unprofessional interest in her, he did tend to try and beat her down or ask her about other aspects of the case, such as DNA and fingerprints. Unrelated to this, do we know who was responsible for leaking the diaries or providing the diaries so that her details could be published?

It's impossile to know.
Impossible to tell if it was a prison guard, a police officer, a clerk's officer at the chancellery, or even a lawyer of one of the several parties who accessed the investigation file, or even her own defence party.