The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 25

[Stacyhs]

Curatolo was interviewed by the police right after the murder. He told them he saw and knew nothing. It was funny because he just kind of volunteered this during his testimony and Mignini quickly glossed over it trying to get him back on topic.

This is particularly relevant because Curatolo later claims he found the young woman chatting "seriously" with her boyfriend so unusual and striking that it remained notable to him. Yet when the police interviewed him 12 hours later about a young woman butchered that very night, he didn't know a thing. It kills his testimony but the Italians don't care because the trials were a sham and the PGP don't care because they don't understand how evidence works or what it means.

it seemed to me that Massei was biased either consciously or subconsciously. But many of his decisions during the trial show a definite pro-prosecution bias. For example, he denied request after request by the defense including having the suspected semen stain tested, sending the fried computer hard drives to specialists, and having an independent analysis of crucial DNA evidence. He favored prosecution experts almost exclusively. For example, when 6 out of 7 experts said a lone killer could have committed the murder, he believed it was still multiple killers despite the lack of any evidence of Knox in the bedroom. His motivation report is just full of assumption not based on scientific evidence and even contrary to it.

 

[Welshman]

it seemed to me that Massei was biased either consciously or subconsciously. But many of his decisions during the trial show a definite pro-prosecution bias. For example, he denied request after request by the defense including having the suspected semen stain tested, sending the fried computer hard drives to specialists, and having an independent analysis of crucial DNA evidence. He favored prosecution experts almost exclusively. For example, when 6 out of 7 experts said a lone killer could have committed the murder, he believed it was still multiple killers despite the lack of any evidence of Knox in the bedroom. His motivation report is just full of assumption not based on scientific evidence and even contrary to it.

PGP like to argue that there must be a strong case and a mountain of evidence against Amanda and Raffaele because courts find them guilty. It seems to me that Massei and Nencini were kangaroo courts who were going to convict Amanda and Raffaele regardless of the facts. Massei completely ignores the problems with the prosecution's evidence.

 

[Welshman]

I don't believe Curatolo ever saw Amanda or Raffaele, even on Halloween night. Raffaele didn't go out at all the evening of Oct 31 until about 1:00 AM when Amanda called and asked him to come accompany her home. They met in the main piazza, Piazza IV Novembre, and went home. Witnesses saw Amanda out by herself, not with Sollecito. Curatolo claims he saw them during the evening at about 9:30 in Piazza Grimana. It's my opinion that Curatolo made the whole thing up or was simply confused (to put it nicely) due to his physical and mental state. The fact that this was his fourth time being a witness for the police certainly undermines his credibility.

I agree that Curalto probably lied about seeing Amanda and Raffaele in the square. A variety of factors suggest Curalto lied; he did not come forward until months later, it is suspect he has been a witness in a previous case and his account makes no sense. I have pointed that PGP posters display grotesque hypocrisy when attacking Amanda and Raffaele for lying. Defending Curalto is an example of this. PGP defend a witness who probably lied and the testimony of a liar is used as evidence against Amanda and Raffaele. PGP feel it is perfectly acceptable for witnesses to lie and to use the testimony of liars as evidence and PGP have the cheek to attack Amanda and Raffaele for lying. Amanda and Raffaele are branded as liars when they are the victims of malicious liars such as Curalto and Quintavelle.

 

[Stacyhs]

I don't believe Curatolo ever saw Amanda or Raffaele, even on Halloween night. Raffaele didn't go out at all the evening of Oct 31 until about 1:00 AM when Amanda called and asked him to come accompany her home. They met in the main piazza, Piazza IV Novembre, and went home. Witnesses saw Amanda out by herself, not with Sollecito. Curatolo claims he saw them during the evening at about 9:30 in Piazza Grimana. It's my opinion that Curatolo made the whole thing up or was simply confused (to put it nicely) due to his physical and mental state. The fact that this was his fourth time being a witness for the police certainly undermines his credibility.

Correction: this was his third time being a witness for the police in three murder cases between 2004 and 2007. This, along with the fact that he only came forward a year later when urged by a reporter, should have aroused suspicion as to his credibility from the beginning. Well, that and the fact he was admittedly high on heroin that night. Sheesh.

 

[Welshman]

Correction: this was his third time being a witness for the police in three murder cases between 2004 and 2007. This, along with the fact that he only came forward a year later when urged by a reporter, should have aroused suspicion as to his credibility from the beginning. Well, that and the fact he was admittedly high on heroin that night. Sheesh.

There are numerous problems with Curalto’s testimony. He did not come forward for a year, he was a heroin addict, it is highly suspect that a Curalto is a serial witness and he described disco buses and people wearing Halloween costumes on the night of the murder when in fact he was describing events from the previous evening. An issue I have raised previously is that if the prosecution had a mountain of solid and damming evidence and a strong case against Amanda and Raffaele, why did the prosecution have to resort to using evidence with no credibility full of holes. The testimony of Curalto is one example of this. Having to resort to using evidence with no credibility indicates the prosecution had such a chronic lack of evidence, they were forced to use evidence with no credibility such as the testimony of Curalto. A major problem with the testimony of Curalto is that he has Amanda and Raffaele away from the cottage which provides Amanda and Raffaele with an alibi. In addition, Curalto made no mention of Guede being with Amanda and Raffaele which undermines the notion Amanda and Raffaele teamed up Guede to kill Meredith. We have a bizarre scenario of prosecutors using evidence which damages their case. If the prosecution had a mountain of solid evidence and a strong case, why did the prosecution have to resort to using evidence which damaged their case. Using the testimony of Curalto indicates the prosecution had such a lack of evidence, they were desperate enough to use evidence which undermined their case.

 

[Bill Williams]

PGP like to argue that there must be a strong case and a mountain of evidence against Amanda and Raffaele because courts find them guilty.

Perhaps all this needs to be in the past tense. With the closure of PMF.ORG, and the threads on IIP at a virtual standstill, it is clear even the on-line "debate" has moved on. There are not very many PGP left arguing anything these days, and the innocentisi mainly simply react to Vixen on this thread.

It was Peter Quennell who back in Oct 2011 assured the on-line world that despite the collapse of the DNA evidence, there was still "all the other evidence". Curatolo, Nara, Quintavalle, the interrogation "confession".

Very few people care any more. A private citizen got laughed out of a Florence court trying to hold Hellmann, Zanetti, etc. to account, and even Andrea Vogt said that all that was doing was extending the Kercher pain through this, a family deserving some merciful closure to the bizarre Itailan process - about the murder of their loved one.

Anyway, I just wanted to observe that there are not many PGP left arguing anything, much less about Curatolo. The ones who are left still are predicting legal-doom to all and sundry in the PIP camp, and are STILL predicting some legal-cummupance for RS and AK, apart from the mean-spirited denial of compensation for Raffaele.

There it is. If I'm still doing this a year from now, would someone please cancel my internet service....

 

[Stacyhs]

You've summed it up very well, Bill.

 

[bagels]

I'm surprised you are still doing it today. If it wasn't for Vixen, this thread would be dead a year ago. Just how many times can you make the same arguments to this deluded soul? I'm interested in what the ECHR will do but only a little bit. I mean really, what difference will that make? Not much. It will ensure Amanda doesn't have to pay her old boss but it's not likely to be a financial windfall for Knox.

I stop by one and a while just to say hi. Hi.

This case will forever stand out from the rest for the incredibly strange group of followers it attracted that have ideas that don't make any sense or follow any coherent thinking.

We call them PGP but it's more correct to refer to them as Rudy Guede groupies and police thug groupies.

A burglar with a history of knife wielding and window break-ins is found covered in blood at a window break-in stabbing. They defend him and say he didn't slay Meredith. That's groupie behavior.

The violent police thugs punch and kick a local married business owner innocent of any crime, and call him a dirty black. They defend the police and say job well done. That's groupie behavior.

How did this case attract such people while most cases attract normal people interested in law & order and justice, except for the odd Charlie Manson fan or w/e. I just don't know.

 

[acbytesla]

This case will forever stand out from the rest for the incredibly strange group of followers it attracted that have ideas that don't make any sense or follow any coherent thinking.

We call them PGP but it's more correct to refer to them as Rudy Guede groupies and police thug groupies.

A burglar with a history of knife wielding and window break-ins is found covered in blood at a window break-in stabbing. They defend him and say he didn't slay Meredith. That's groupie behavior.

The violent police thugs punch and kick a local married business owner innocent of any crime, and call him a dirty black. They defend the police and say job well done. That's groupie behavior.

How did this case attract such people while most cases attract normal people interested in law & order and justice, except for the odd Charlie Manson fan or w/e. I just don't know.

For me, the case itself is actually mundane and hardly worth discussion other than how cognitive bias took hold. Anyone who still believes that Amanda and Raffaele were involved are either stubborn or stupid.

However, the social dynamics of society OTOH are well worth studying. I expect that the effects of this case will be studied for years and that is very interesting. But trying to persuade those few stupid or stubborn morons still insisting that the innocent were guilty is a total waste of time.

 

[Stacyhs]

For me, the case itself is actually mundane and hardly worth discussion other than how cognitive bias took hold. Anyone who still believes that Amanda and Raffaele were involved or either stubborn or stupid.

However, the social dynamics of society OTOH are well worth studying. I expect that the effects of this case will be studied for years and that is very interesting. But trying to persuade those few stupid or stubborn morons still insisting that the innocent were guilty is a total waste of time.

It's like trying to convince a "birther" that Obama really was born in Hawaii. It doesn't matter that his birth certificate, provided by the Hawaii Dept of Health, proves he was; for the birthers, it's "fake".

 

[abaddon]

It's like trying to convince a "birther" that Obama really was born in Hawaii. It doesn't matter that his birth certificate, provided by the Hawaii Dept of Health, proves he was; for the birthers, it's "fake".

Yeah, we comprehensively dismantled that nonsense in another thread.

 

[acbytesla]

It's like trying to convince a "birther" that Obama really was born in Hawaii. It doesn't matter that his birth certificate, provided by the Hawaii Dept of Health, proves he was; for the birthers, it's "fake".

For me, it's like trying to teach evolution to a creationist. The fossil record, radiometric dating, embryology, DNA, plus breeding experiments that ALL, everyone last one of them point to evolution and they still believe in 3,000 year old writings. It's embarrassing.

This case is EXACTLY the same.

 

[Bill Williams]

This case will forever stand out from the rest for the incredibly strange group of followers it attracted that have ideas that don't make any sense or follow any coherent thinking.

We call them PGP but it's more correct to refer to them as Rudy Guede groupies and police thug groupies.

A burglar with a history of knife wielding and window break-ins is found covered in blood at a window break-in stabbing. They defend him and say he didn't slay Meredith. That's groupie behavior.

The violent police thugs punch and kick a local married business owner innocent of any crime, and call him a dirty black. They defend the police and say job well done. That's groupie behavior.
How did this case attract such people while most cases attract normal people interested in law & order and justice, except for the odd Charlie Manson fan or w/e. I just don't know.

The fly in this ointment was that Knox was convicted of calunnia - convicted in relation to what is now obviously behaviour of the police, such behaviour that the courts ultimately blamed on Knox. It's not so much "groupie behaviour" as much as it is giving police the benefit of the doubt; something which (as we have learned) happens too much in Italian courts.

In North American courts the cops would have at least received a dressing down.... I think. It's remarkable that even the ultimate-acquitting court only manages some weak criticisms of the investigators, calling the investigation "amnesiac" and some other names but never the investigators themselves.

I used to be a guilter of calunnia, so perhaps that's why I'm picking on this right now. I was perhaps the only person in the world who agreed 100% with Hellmann's findings - it was a strange bit of rhetorical territory to occupy, believe you me. Until Feb or March 2012 it seemed obvious to me that Knox was convictible (but perhaps not sentenceable) for calunnia against Lumumba; that is until I read the English translation of Mignini's 2010 interview with Drew Griffin of CNN.

But in 2017 - the thing that gives away PGP every time is the complete lack of ANY criticism of the police or investigators on their web-presences; the "groupie" behaviour is when they laud people like Mignini as being some sort of investigative genius. Hell, Mignini himself in the Netflix documentary seems aware of his screwups - even mentioned the time someone (in 2009?) called him evil, as if he feared that his participation in the Knox/Sollecito prosecutions was perhaps evil!

It takes a real groupie to stick by a guy like that as if he'd done no wrong.

 

[acbytesla]

The fly in this ointment was that Knox was convicted of calunnia - convicted in relation to what is now obviously behaviour of the police, such behaviour that the courts ultimately blamed on Knox. It's not so much "groupie behaviour" as much as it is giving police the benefit of the doubt; something which (as we have learned) happens too much in Italian courts.

In North American courts the cops would have at least received a dressing down.... I think. It's remarkable that even the ultimate-acquitting court only manages some weak criticisms of the investigators, calling the investigation "amnesiac" and some other names but never the investigators themselves.

I used to be a guilter of calunnia, so perhaps that's why I'm picking on this right now. I was perhaps the only person in the world who agreed 100% with Hellmann's findings - it was a strange bit of rhetorical territory to occupy, believe you me. Until Feb or March 2012 it seemed obvious to me that Knox was convictible (but perhaps not sentenceable) for calunnia against Lumumba; that is until I read the English translation of Mignini's 2010 interview with Drew Griffin of CNN.

But in 2017 - the thing that gives away PGP every time is the complete lack of ANY criticism of the police or investigators on their web-presences; the "groupie" behaviour is when they laud people like Mignini as being some sort of investigative genius. Hell, Mignini himself in the Netflix documentary seems aware of his screwups - even mentioned the time someone (in 2009?) called him evil, as if he feared that his participation in the Knox/Sollecito prosecutions was perhaps evil!

It takes a real groupie to stick by a guy like that as if he'd done no wrong.

Yea, I don't get believing that the guilty calunnia charge was correct ever. Now that doesn't mean that I understand the technical aspects of Italian law. I don't.

I just don't see how anyone can suggest that Amanda possessed the required mens rea to be able to commit the crime. If her statements in the interrogation can't be used to convict her for murder, why are they admissible for callunia?

 

[bagels]

For me, it's like trying to teach evolution to a creationist. The fossil record, radiometric dating, embryology, DNA, plus breeding experiments that ALL, everyone last one of them point to evolution and they still believe in 3,000 year old writings. It's embarrassing.

This case is EXACTLY the same.

In defense of the 3,000 year old writing:

"And Hezekiah said to Isaiah, What is the sign that the Lord will heal me, and that I shall go up to the house of the Lord the third day? Then Isaiah said, This is the sign to you from the Lord, that the Lord will do the thing which He has spoken: shall the shadow go forward ten degrees or go backward ten degrees? And Hezekiah answered, It is an easy thing for the shadow to go down ten degrees, no but let the shadow go backward ten degrees."

They knew how to read a clock (sundial).

Let's compare with Nencini in 2014 (CE):

" there still remains a discrepancy of a good nine minutes between the time when the State Police arrived at the cottage and the time when Raffaele Sollecito called 112 for the first time [at 12:51]."

Nencini does not know how to read a clock.

 

[Planigale]

For me, the case itself is actually mundane and hardly worth discussion other than how cognitive bias took hold. Anyone who still believes that Amanda and Raffaele were involved are either stubborn or stupid.

However, the social dynamics of society OTOH are well worth studying. I expect that the effects of this case will be studied for years and that is very interesting. But trying to persuade those few stupid or stubborn morons still insisting that the innocent were guilty is a total waste of time.

As has been discussed elsewhere the phenomenon has been studied with McCann guilters. A forensic psychologist has identified features of sadism, and psychopathy and machiavelism in the guilter posters. There are other cases with similar posters. A common feature seems to be that the target is nearly always a woman or the female half of a couple. One where the persecuted individual is seen as having got away with murder. Like the eumenides the guilter chorus seek vengeance. I like to feel that we have Athena the goddess of science technology and justice on our side.

 

[acbytesla]

In defense of the 3,000 year old writing:

"And Hezekiah said to Isaiah, What is the sign that the Lord will heal me, and that I shall go up to the house of the Lord the third day? Then Isaiah said, This is the sign to you from the Lord, that the Lord will do the thing which He has spoken: shall the shadow go forward ten degrees or go backward ten degrees? And Hezekiah answered, It is an easy thing for the shadow to go down ten degrees, no but let the shadow go backward ten degrees."

They knew how to read a clock (sundial).

Let's compare with Nencini in 2014 (CE):

[qimg]http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/cctv_021107_1248.png[/qimg]

" there still remains a discrepancy of a good nine minutes between the time when the State Police arrived at the cottage and the time when Raffaele Sollecito called 112 for the first time [at 12:51]."

Nencini does not know how to read a clock.

As I said. It's embarrassing. I want to scream loudly McFly! Think! Think!!!

 

[LondonJohn]

Yea, I don't get believing that the guilty calunnia charge was correct ever. Now that doesn't mean that I understand the technical aspects of Italian law. I don't.

I just don't see how anyone can suggest that Amanda possessed the required mens rea to be able to commit the crime. If her statements in the interrogation can't be used to convict her for murder, why are they admissible for callunia?

Oh this is a different matter altogether. And it's related to laws safeguarding people from self-incrimination without the proper cautions etc.

Let's imagine a (totally hypothetical) scenario whereby two people (let's call them "A" and "B") committed a murder in Italy. "A" was, let's say, the housemate of the victim.

Suppose the police were having a preliminary witness interview with "A" (you know: "Can you help us? Do you know of anyone who had a grudge against the victim? When did you last see the victim?" etc), when "A" suddenly says:

"Oh man, I can't hold it in any longer. I was one of the three people who killed the victim. The three of us comprised me, "B", and "C". "B" was the one who stabbed the victim to death while "C" and I held the victim down!"

The police (let's pretend the Italian police/PMs are competent, thorough and honest....) then gather further investigation which indicates that the murder was actually committed by "A" and "B" (and not "C") - and "A" and "B" are charged and tried.

Now, in Italy, what ought to happen would be as follows:

This statement made by "A" cannot be usable against "A" in any criminal trial, since it is self-incriminating and was made in the total absence of any cautions, legal counsel etc.

This statement made by "A" CAN, however, be usable against "B" in any criminal trial, since "B" is not afforded the same protection in law (in that instance, it's incrimination rather than self-incrimination).

This statement made by "A" CAN be used in a (separate) prosecution of "A" for criminal slander against "C".


So if we bring this back to Knox: it's entirely feasible (in THEORY alone) that - as the PGP continue to insist - Knox simple "blurted out" this story about meeting up with Lumumba and taking him to the cottage, all in the absence of any police coercion - or even suggestion! - and entirely of her own free will. Now, if this (fairy) story were actually correct, it would be entirely true that none of this statement by Knox could be used against her (self-incrimination without cautioning/legal counsel etc), but COULD be used against her in a prosecution of her for criminal slander against Lumumba.

So IN PRINCIPLE it's possible. But of course, as you point out, in practice things are hugely different. As you say, Knox simply didn't have the required mens rea for the crime of criminal slander against Lumumba. She didn't accuse him of her own free will and volition. She was coerced and bullied by the police (aided and abetted artfully by the interpreter addition interrogator Donnino). She was instructed by the police to "remember" meeting with Lumumba (i.e. the man to whom she'd sent the "see you later" message) and taking him to the cottage whereupon he'd murdered Kercher; she was effectively told that a) the police already "knew" that this was what had happened, b) if she did not "remember" this, she could expect to be charged with extremely serious crimes and spend a very long time in prison, and c) if she DID "remember" this, she'd be greatly helping not only herself, but also Kercher's grieving family, by helping the police put the evil Lumumba away for a very long prison sentence.

 

[LondonJohn]

In defense of the 3,000 year old writing:

"And Hezekiah said to Isaiah, What is the sign that the Lord will heal me, and that I shall go up to the house of the Lord the third day? Then Isaiah said, This is the sign to you from the Lord, that the Lord will do the thing which He has spoken: shall the shadow go forward ten degrees or go backward ten degrees? And Hezekiah answered, It is an easy thing for the shadow to go down ten degrees, no but let the shadow go backward ten degrees."

They knew how to read a clock (sundial).

Let's compare with Nencini in 2014 (CE):

[qimg]http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/cctv_021107_1248.png[/qimg]

" there still remains a discrepancy of a good nine minutes between the time when the State Police arrived at the cottage and the time when Raffaele Sollecito called 112 for the first time [at 12:51]."

Nencini does not know how to read a clock.

Well....... we have yet to work in the factor that other time-supportable evidence - the CCTV footage (with its timestamp) showing the arrival of Carabinieri officers just over half an hour later, set against provable time that those same officers called for directions to the cottage from inside their car since they could not find the cottage - shows clearly that the parking garage CCTV timestamp was in fact at least 10 minutes (and very probably around 12 minutes) SLOW.

In other words, when the CCTV timestamp reads 12:48, the ACTUAL time is almost certainly about 13:00 (i.e. 1pm).

So the Postal Police officers (whose legs are pointed out in that CCTV still, timestamped 12:48) actually arrived at the cottage at or very shortly after 1pm. Several minutes AFTER Sollecito had called his sister then the Carabinieri, and several minutes after Knox had called her mother in Seattle.


Funnily enough, this has personal resonance for me. My first (accidental) contact with this case was through reading "Darkness Descending" (which I truly had bought as an add-on book in a "buy one get one free" offer in a book shop). And DD produced it as a settled fact that the Postal Police officers had provably arrived BEFORE Sollecito called his sister and then the Carabinieri, and before Knox called her mother (and remember, in none of those phone calls was it ever mentioned that police officers of any sort had already arrived at the cottage). And I could not conceive of any reason how/why an innocent Knox or Sollecito would have snuck away from the Postal Police officers to make these calls, and then to avoid mentioning the presence of the Postal Police officers within any of those calls.

Of course, most of the other evidence as presented in DD also made one lean heavily to guilt. But for me at least, it was this idea of Knox and Sollecito sneaking away to call another (possibly more "favourable" unit of the Italian police) and to call relatives - all without mentioning that the Postal Police were already there - which sealed the deal for me.

And then I learned more. And I learned that the story was a heck of a lot more complicated than it had been presented to me in DD. And I learned that in fact the evidence strongly leaned in favour of the timestamp on the CCTV being 10-12 minutes slow. And I learned an awful lot more besides about this whole case. And I ceased to believe in guilt (legal for sure, and factual more and more as time went on).

 

[acbytesla]

Oh this is a different matter altogether. And it's related to laws safeguarding people from self-incrimination without the proper cautions etc.

Let's imagine a (totally hypothetical) scenario whereby two people (let's call them "A" and "B") committed a murder in Italy. "A" was, let's say, the housemate of the victim.

Suppose the police were having a preliminary witness interview with "A" (you know: "Can you help us? Do you know of anyone who had a grudge against the victim? When did you last see the victim?" etc), when "A" suddenly says:

"Oh man, I can't hold it in any longer. I was one of the three people who killed the victim. The three of us comprised me, "B", and "C". "B" was the one who stabbed the victim to death while "C" and I held the victim down!"

The police (let's pretend the Italian police/PMs are competent, thorough and honest....) then gather further investigation which indicates that the murder was actually committed by "A" and "B" (and not "C") - and "A" and "B" are charged and tried.

Now, in Italy, what ought to happen would be as follows:

This statement made by "A" cannot be usable against "A" in any criminal trial, since it is self-incriminating and was made in the total absence of any cautions, legal counsel etc.

This statement made by "A" CAN, however, be usable against "B" in any criminal trial, since "B" is not afforded the same protection in law (in that instance, it's incrimination rather than self-incrimination).

This statement made by "A" CAN be used in a (separate) prosecution of "A" for criminal slander against "C".


So if we bring this back to Knox: it's entirely feasible (in THEORY alone) that - as the PGP continue to insist - Knox simple "blurted out" this story about meeting up with Lumumba and taking him to the cottage, all in the absence of any police coercion - or even suggestion! - and entirely of her own free will. Now, if this (fairy) story were actually correct, it would be entirely true that none of this statement by Knox could be used against her (self-incrimination without cautioning/legal counsel etc), but COULD be used against her in a prosecution of her for criminal slander against Lumumba.

So IN PRINCIPLE it's possible. But of course, as you point out, in practice things are hugely different. As you say, Knox simply didn't have the required mens rea for the crime of criminal slander against Lumumba. She didn't accuse him of her own free will and volition. She was coerced and bullied by the police (aided and abetted artfully by the interpreter addition interrogator Donnino). She was instructed by the police to "remember" meeting with Lumumba (i.e. the man to whom she'd sent the "see you later" message) and taking him to the cottage whereupon he'd murdered Kercher; she was effectively told that a) the police already "knew" that this was what had happened, b) if she did not "remember" this, she could expect to be charged with extremely serious crimes and spend a very long time in prison, and c) if she DID "remember" this, she'd be greatly helping not only herself, but also Kercher's grieving family, by helping the police put the evil Lumumba away for a very long prison sentence.

Exactly. It can't be defined as an excited or spontaneous utterance given the circumstances of the interrogation. The simple fact that the Italian Supreme Court recognizes this even before the first trial should eliminate the fruit of the interrogation in its entirety.

But hey, I'm just an armchair lawyer.