The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 28

[Stacyhs]

Was any other "witness" (possibly excluding the suspect Rudy Guede) questioned or asked to remain with the police for as many hours as Amanda?

I don't know for certain, but I've never seen it claimed that any other 'witness' was questioned by the police anywhere near the amount that Knox was. Which brings up the false claim by guilters that Knox was not questioned by police for 53 hours before her arrest. The days and times she was being questioned were detailed in her appeal document after the Massei trial. They add up to 53. But she wasn't exhausted at all by the time of the Nov. 5/6 interrogation, right?

 

[RoseMontague]

Aida Colantone's testimony is only available in Italian on the IA wiki but it's on the pro-guilt wiki in English (I know, I know)! Colantone testified in court about the events at the questura on Nov 4th, prior to the visit to VDP -

"On that same day. I remember that after the questioning with Amanda was finished we both exited the room, and Amanda was taken into a room near the offices of the Flying Squad. Then after a little while I was asked to go into a particular room because it was suitably prepared for surveillance, into another place at the police station, where they had taken Amanda and Raffaele. So that around four, four thirty, at 16.00 - 16.30 hrs., I was listening in with the headphones on what the two youngsters were saying in this room arranged for them."

Do we have "suitably prepared" arrangements made for anyone else connected to the case?

Hoots

Just more evidence that a tape existed at one point.

 

[Numbers]

Just more evidence that a tape existed at one point.

Is it true that there are audiotapes and/or apparently complete transcripts in existence for all the questionings and conversations of Knox and/or Sollecito at the Perugia police station, except for the interrogations of 5/6 November 2007?

 

[Methos]

Is it true that there are audiotapes and/or apparently complete transcripts in existence for all the questionings and conversations of Knox and/or Sollecito at the Perugia police station, except for the interrogations of 5/6 November 2007?

Take a look here: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/statements-phone-taps-prison-intercepts/

 

[LondonJohn]

Just more evidence that a tape existed at one point.

I know I've repeated it too often in these pages..... but I don't believe a tape recording of the 5/6 Nov interrogations was ever made. And I say that because I also believe that Mignini, Giobbi and the interrogators had a premeditated plan that evening: to force confessions from Sollecito and Knox in turn, and then to get some form of written confession statements that they could subsequently use in court.

I believe that as of, say, 9pm on 5 Nov, the police/PM believed they KNEW that Knox was intimately involved in the murder, and that Sollecito at the very least was lying to protect her (and at most, Sollecito himself was involved as well). The problem is: in order to "break" Sollecito and then Knox, the PM/police knew very well that the interrogators might need to resort to *unorthodox* (i.e. unlawful and possibly illegal) methods. And they simply couldn't risk those methods being captured in any way on tape.

So (IMO) they made certain that no tape recordings were made of those critical interrogations. Once Sollecito and Knox had "buckled", the plan was to obtain written confession evidence that was usable in court; and in this case it was in the form of Mignini's sleight-of-hand extraction of a "spontaneous declaration" from Knox.

In summary: I don't believe a tape recording of those 5/6 Nov interrogations is locked away somewhere in the possession of a senior police officer or PM. I don't believe a tape recording was ever even made of those interrogations. I believe there was a conscious, cunning decision made - prior to the interrogations starting - to leave the tape recorders empty. And all for the reasons I suggest above.

 

[Numbers]

I know I've repeated it too often in these pages..... but I don't believe a tape recording of the 5/6 Nov interrogations was ever made. And I say that because I also believe that Mignini, Giobbi and the interrogators had a premeditated plan that evening: to force confessions from Sollecito and Knox in turn, and then to get some form of written confession statements that they could subsequently use in court.

I believe that as of, say, 9pm on 5 Nov, the police/PM believed they KNEW that Knox was intimately involved in the murder, and that Sollecito at the very least was lying to protect her (and at most, Sollecito himself was involved as well). The problem is: in order to "break" Sollecito and then Knox, the PM/police knew very well that the interrogators might need to resort to *unorthodox* (i.e. unlawful and possibly illegal) methods. And they simply couldn't risk those methods being captured in any way on tape.

So (IMO) they made certain that no tape recordings were made of those critical interrogations. Once Sollecito and Knox had "buckled", the plan was to obtain written confession evidence that was usable in court; and in this case it was in the form of Mignini's sleight-of-hand extraction of a "spontaneous declaration" from Knox.

In summary: I don't believe a tape recording of those 5/6 Nov interrogations is locked away somewhere in the possession of a senior police officer or PM. I don't believe a tape recording was ever even made of those interrogations. I believe there was a conscious, cunning decision made - prior to the interrogations starting - to leave the tape recorders empty. And all for the reasons I suggest above.

I am not going to disagree with you.

But I will point out that the end result of three different scenarios is much the same as far as investigations, such as a hypothetical request by the ECHR for any recording from the 5/6 November interrogation, are concerned:

1. If there was no audio (or audiovisual) recording made, the only available contemporaneous information on the interrogation consists of the inadequate and insufficient notes from the police, Amanda's (coerced) statements of 1:45 am and 5:45 am, and Amanda's recollections of the events that were written down soon after the interrogation (Memoriale 1, handed over to the police at about 1 pm on 6 November, according to the ECHR judgment's statement of facts), which she consistently repeated in subsequent letters to lawyers and statements before the courts. Some of her key statements, such as the misconduct by the interpreter and the police officer who held her hand and hugged her, were supported by the testimony of the police.

2. If an audio or av record was made and then destroyed, the conclusion about information remains as in (1).

3. If, rather than being destroyed, it is instead hidden, as long as it is not disclosed the conclusion about information remains as in (1). If it were hidden, the Italian authorities may not consider it in their interest - which in their opinion may include maintaining the impunity of the police and prosecutor - to seek it out.

 

[Stacyhs]

Just more evidence that a tape existed at one point.

I think the surveillance Colantone is referring to is of the bugged room where Knox and Sollecito were waiting. They were not being questioned by the police at that time. The police were hoping to get the two of them to say something incriminating while they thought they were alone. They failed.

 

[Stacyhs]

I agree with LondonJohn that a recording of the Nov. 5/6 interrogation was never made on purpose. I think the police knew damn good and well that they were using coercive techniques and did not want a record of that interrogation other than what they chose to present. AFAIK, Lumumba's interrogation was not recorded either and he also had no lawyer present even though no one can claim he was not a suspect when he was dragged into the police station.

 

[Stacyhs]

double post deleted

 

[Numbers]

I agree with LondonJohn that a recording of the Nov. 5/6 interrogation was never made on purpose. I think the police knew damn good and well that they were using coercive techniques and did not want a record of that interrogation other than what they chose to present. AFAIK, Lumumba's interrogation was not recorded either and he also had no lawyer present even though no one can claim he was not a suspect when he was dragged into the police station.

A really good point about the police and prosecution techniques, consistently denying lawyers contrary to Italian law for all three suspects - Sollecito, Knox, and Lumumba. Of course, Rudy Guede did have his lawyer present when he was interrogated.

 

[TomG]

I believe that as of, say, 9pm on 5 Nov, the police/PM believed they KNEW that Knox was intimately involved in the murder, and that Sollecito at the very least was lying to protect her (and at most, Sollecito himself was involved as well). The problem is: in order to "break" Sollecito and then Knox, the PM/police knew very well that the interrogators might need to resort to *unorthodox* (i.e. unlawful and possibly illegal) methods. And they simply couldn't risk those methods being captured in any way on tape.

If the cops thought that they really "KNEW" that Amanda was intimately involved with the murder they wouldn't have to resort to *unorthodox" methods as you put it, they would only need to follow the leads that convinced them that they "KNEW" Amanda was involved in order to implicate her. If the cops are going to use *unorthodox* methods it shows that they have an entirely different agenda based on an overwhelming need for self-preservation rather than knowing anything that would implicate Amanda. I still believe that the cops knew that Rudy was the only one involved from the moment Meredith's body was discovered. Rudy had been useful to the cops but now he had done the unthinkable, thus implicating them all, including Mignini, who should have had him off the streets. When you find Mignini blaming Amanda for "protecting someone" all he is doing is transferring his, and the cops protection of Rudy onto Amanda. They knew it was Rudy all right, and nobody else.

Hoots

 

[Numbers]

A really good point about the police and prosecution techniques, consistently denying lawyers contrary to Italian law for all three suspects - Sollecito, Knox, and Lumumba. Of course, Rudy Guede did have his lawyer present when he was interrogated.

Here is the legally required warning to a suspect (translated by IIP volunteers?) as given by Mignini to Guede for a deposition.

"Right look apart from what is foreseen by the first paragraph of article 66 {of the CPP} you were obliged to respond regarding your personal details, for everything else {1} you have the right to not respond. But {2} if you make statements on facts which concern the responsibility of others you will assume the position of witness on those facts and however if you don’t respond there will be, investigations will be carried out against you, apart from the incompatibilities foreseen by article 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the guarantees provided by article 197 bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure. {4} Present for the the deposition are your entrusted attorneys Nicodemo Gentile and Walter Biscotti of the Perugia Bar. So do you the entrusted Counsel confirm the nomination of both?"

Note Mignini's warning is consistent with CPP Article 64, mentioning: 1) The right to remain silent (except about one's identity); 2) a warning against not telling the truth about others - that is, not to commit calunnia; and 3) indication that not responding does not imply that the investigation will not proceed. The presence of the lawyers is noted by 4).

Source: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/RG-Transcript.pdf

Added for clarification: This was not, in all probability, the first Italian police or prosecution questioning of Guede. It was conducted on 26 March 2008 at Capanne Prison.

 

[Stacyhs]

If the cops thought that they really "KNEW" that Amanda was intimately involved with the murder they wouldn't have to resort to *unorthodox" methods as you put it, they would only need to follow the leads that convinced them that they "KNEW" Amanda was involved in order to implicate her. If the cops are going to use *unorthodox* methods it shows that they have an entirely different agenda based on an overwhelming need for self-preservation rather than knowing anything that would implicate Amanda. I still believe that the cops knew that Rudy was the only one involved from the moment Meredith's body was discovered. Rudy had been useful to the cops but now he had done the unthinkable, thus implicating them all, including Mignini, who should have had him off the streets. When you find Mignini blaming Amanda for "protecting someone" all he is doing is transferring his, and the cops protection of Rudy onto Amanda. They knew it was Rudy all right, and nobody else.

Hoots

Their immediate claim that the break-in was staged before any investigation, their immediate declaration that no one could climb in through that window with no attempt to show otherwise, their failure to do a glass breakage analysis and their ignoring of the glass shard embedded in the exterior of the interior shutter all indicate to me that they could have possibly recognized Guede's method of operation right away.

 

[Stacyhs]

Guede had a lawyer, Nicodemo Gentile, even before he was arrested and could be interrogated by the Italian police. According to Burleigh:

Before Rudy was arrested in Germany on November 19, when he was still just a fugitive, Ivorian community leaders had called on Gentile first.

Burleigh, Nina. The Fatal Gift of Beauty: The Trials of Amanda Knox (p. 228). Random House, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

 

[TomG]

Their immediate claim that the break-in was staged before any investigation, their immediate declaration that no one could climb in through that window with no attempt to show otherwise, their failure to do a glass breakage analysis and their ignoring of the glass shard embedded in the exterior of the interior shutter all indicate to me that they could have possibly recognized Guede's method of operation right away.

Agreed! When I realised it, it was like being shot in the head with a diamond. When fat boy Mignini starting accusing Amanda of "protecting someone" he was unburdening his and the cops responsibility for Rudy and foisting it onto Amanda. Lumumba was never a bona fide suspect, he was the cops patsy.

Hoots

 

[Bill Williams]

Agreed! When I realised it, it was like being shot in the head with a diamond. When fat boy Mignini starting accusing Amanda of "protecting someone" he was unburdening his and the cops responsibility for Rudy and foisting it onto Amanda. Lumumba was never a bona fide suspect, he was the cops patsy.

Hoots

Everyone should read page 155 (beginning of chapter 23) of John Follain's "A Death in Italy". Please note, Follain writes the most cop/prosecutor-friendly account of the investigation; sometimes relaying the very thoughts of cops and prosecutors.

Mignini lost all hope of Amanda ever cooperating again with him as soon as he saw her in the Perugia law courts at a hearing held to decide whether or not she should stay in prison. Amanda avoided the prosecutor's gaze and huddled with her lawyers, talking intensely to them. To all appearances, she was already building a close relationship with them.​

(Bolding not in the original)

I mean, how did Follain know that, "Mignini lost all hope....."?

That is before considering the implications of Follain's cop-friendly, prosecutor-sourced account. No wonder Mignini had denied Knox's (and Sollecito's) right to a lawyer and adequate translator..... he could control information coming from her, as long as she had no competent counsel.

To make things worse, Amanda's Italian was fine for ordering a meal in a restaurant, but legal jargon was a complete mystery to her....​

Because she could be easily led without competent counsel, esp. when Mignini controled the Italian legalese that he'd get Knox to sign.

It was at this hearing that both Knox and Sollecito had FIRST MET THEIR LAWYERS. They'd first met AT THE HEARING, in front of Perugia's "Iron Lady", Claudia Matteini, where even she suspended the hearing for an hour, "in order to give (the lawyers) time to photocopy and study what documents were available."

In any event, regardless of exactly when either Knox or Sollecito had been deemed official suspects, it did not really matter because by November 8th they STILL were without lawyers. In Amanda's case, even Follain admits on that page:

Ghirga realised immediately that Amanda had no idea what the hearing was about, just as she had no idea what awaited her in the coming weeks.​

It is evident that the basis of Mignini's/the cops' interrogation was to keep Knox as much in the dark as possible, for as long as possible. They knew language was a barrier, they knew her knowledge of Italian law was non-existent.

And she arrived (as did Raffaele) at the hearing to decide her preventative incarceration not even knowing that that was what it was about.

So let's not discuss the exact time she/him were officially suspects. Even the most Mignini-favourable author described well what was wrong - except that Follain never says it was wrong. He just relates it.

 

[Numbers]

Agreed! When I realised it, it was like being shot in the head with a diamond. When fat boy Mignini starting accusing Amanda of "protecting someone" he was unburdening his and the cops responsibility for Rudy and foisting it onto Amanda. Lumumba was never a bona fide suspect, he was the cops patsy.

Hoots

Everyone should read page 155 (beginning of chapter 23) of John Follain's "A Death in Italy". Please note, Follain writes the most cop/prosecutor-friendly account of the investigation; sometimes relaying the very thoughts of cops and prosecutors.

Mignini lost all hope of Amanda ever cooperating again with him as soon as he saw her in the Perugia law courts at a hearing held to decide whether or not she should stay in prison. Amanda avoided the prosecutor's gaze and huddled with her lawyers, talking intensely to them. To all appearances, she was already building a close relationship with them.​

(Bolding not in the original)

I mean, how did Follain know that, "Mignini lost all hope....."?

That is before considering the implications of Follain's cop-friendly, prosecutor-sourced account. No wonder Mignini had denied Knox's (and Sollecito's) right to a lawyer and adequate translator..... he could control information coming from her, as long as she had no competent counsel.

To make things worse, Amanda's Italian was fine for ordering a meal in a restaurant, but legal jargon was a complete mystery to her....​

Because she could be easily led without competent counsel, esp. when Mignini controled the Italian legalese that he'd get Knox to sign.

It was at this hearing that both Knox and Sollecito had FIRST MET THEIR LAWYERS. They'd first met AT THE HEARING, in front of Perugia's "Iron Lady", Claudia Matteini, where even she suspended the hearing for an hour, "in order to give (the lawyers) time to photocopy and study what documents were available."

In any event, regardless of exactly when either Knox or Sollecito had been deemed official suspects, it did not really matter because by November 8th they STILL were without lawyers. In Amanda's case, even Follain admits on that page:

Ghirga realised immediately that Amanda had no idea what the hearing was about, just as she had no idea what awaited her in the coming weeks.​

It is evident that the basis of Mignini's/the cops' interrogation was to keep Knox as much in the dark as possible, for as long as possible. They knew language was a barrier, they knew her knowledge of Italian law was non-existent.

And she arrived (as did Raffaele) at the hearing to decide her preventative incarceration not even knowing that that was what it was about.

So let's not discuss the exact time she/him were officially suspects. Even the most Mignini-favourable author described well what was wrong - except that Follain never says it was wrong. He just relates it.

These two posts are very interesting and may or may not be adopting similar positions. But I am going to discuss the ECHR Chamber judgment Knox v. Italy, even quoting the original relevant French text, to show that there is some need to specify when Amanda Knox became a suspect (in the autonomous meaning used by the ECHR).

First, I interpret TomG's post as suggesting or claiming that the police and prosecutor Mignini knew or suspected prior to the interrogations of Nov. 5/6, 2007 that Rudy Guede was the (likely) perpetrator, and that Knox, Sollecito, and Lumumba were drawn in as suspects or framed by those authorities in order for the authorities to hide their responsibility in negligently or corruptly not arresting Guede after his apprehension in the Milan nursery school break-in (illegal entry).

Bill's post, however, makes the point that Mignini denied Knox and Sollecito access to lawyers up to the very moment that their hearings for justification of arrest began on November 8. Therefore, in my interpretation, Bill states that we need not bother to discuss or discover when Knox (or Sollecito) became a suspect, because (under my interpretation) under ECHR case-law the denial of a lawyer during this period of detention is a violation of Convention Article 6.1 with 6.3c (at least if one is convicted of a crime based on a statement made during the period of detention without access to a lawyer).

TomG's statements are, in my view, speculative but not unreasonable. However, I will suggest that one can also speculate that the police and Mignini drew in or framed Knox, Sollecito, and Lumumba simply because they were "convenient suspects". (Mignini may have had other psychological motivations, such as misogyny.) Choosing them was quick and didn't require much real investigative effort, such as looking for the actual knife that killed Meredith Kercher or searching for the rapist whose DNA would match the male DNA in her vagina. It's doubtful that without the help of Guede's friend Benedetti alerting them, the police would have considered Guede a suspect.

I think Bill's argument is mostly correct; however, the ECHR does pay attention to the status of any applicant who complains of having been convicted based on a statement made during questioning without a lawyer. The ECHR seeks to determine whether that person was a suspect - according to the ECHR's definition, not merely that of the state, during that time.

Here's the ECHR "autonomous" definition of a suspect (which is also the definition of an "accused" or of anyone "facing a criminal charge"), from Knox v. Italy:

"149. Concernant les déclarations recueillies à 1 h 45, la Cour rappelle que les garanties offertes par l’article 6 §§ 1 et 3 de la Convention s’appliquent à tout « accusé » au sens autonome que revêt ce terme sur le terrain de la Convention. Il y a « accusation en matière pénale » dès lors qu’une personne est officiellement inculpée par les autorités compétentes ou que les actes effectués par celles-ci en raison des soupçons qui pèsent contre elle ont des répercussions importantes sur sa situation (Simeonovi, précité, §§ 110-111)."

Google translation with my help:

"149. With regard to the statements taken at 1:45 am, the Court reiterates that the guarantees offered by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention apply to any "accused" in the autonomous sense of the term under the Convention. There is a "criminal charge" where a person is formally charged by the competent authorities or where the actions of the authorities because of suspicions against the person have a significant impact on his situation (Simeonovi, cited above, §§ 110-111)."

Regarding the 1:45 am and 5:45 am statements, the Chamber judgment continues:

"150. Appliquant ce principe au cas d’espèce, la Cour s’interroge donc sur le point de savoir si, au moment des auditions, les autorités internes avaient des raisons plausibles de soupçonner que la requérante était impliquée dans le meurtre de M.K.
151. Elle observe à cet égard que la requérante avait déjà été entendue par la police les 2, 3 et 4 novembre 2007 et qu’elle avait été mise sur écoute. Elle note qu’il ressort en outre des faits de la cause que, le soir du 5 novembre 2007, l’attention des enquêteurs s’est focalisée sur la requérante(paragraphes 12-14 ci-dessus). Elle relève que, alors que celle-ci s’était rendue spontanément au poste de police, elle s’est vu poser des questions dans le couloir par des agents de police qui ont ensuite continué à l’interroger dans une salle où elle a été soumise, à deux reprises et pendant des heures, à des interrogatoires serrés.
152. Or, aux yeux de la Cour, même à supposer que ces éléments ne suffisent pas à conclure que, à 1 h 45 le 6 novembre 2007, la requérante pouvait être considérée comme étant suspecte au sens de sa jurisprudence, il y a lieu de relever que, comme l’a reconnu le Gouvernement, lorsqu’elle a fait ses déclarations de 5 h 45 devant le procureur de la République, la requérante avait acquis formellement la qualité de personne mise en examen. La Cour considère qu’il ne fait donc pas de doute que, à 5 h 45 au plus tard, la requérante faisait l’objet d’une accusation en matière pénale au sens de la Convention (Ibrahim et autres, précité, § 296)."

Google translated with my help:

"150. Applying this principle to the present case, the Court therefore raises the question whether, at the time of the hearings, the domestic authorities had reasonable suspicion that the applicant was involved in the murder of M.K.
151. It observes in that regard that the applicant had already been heard by the police on 2, 3 and 4 November 2007 and that her cell phone had been tapped. It notes that the facts of the case also show that, on the evening of 5 November 2007, the attention of the investigators focused on the applicant (see paragraphs 12-14 above). It notes that while she went to the police station spontaneously, she was asked questions in the corridor by police officers who then continued to interrogate her in a room where she had been previously subjected twice, for hours, to close interrogations. 152. In the Court's view, even assuming that these elements are not sufficient to conclude that, at 1:45 am on 6 November 2007, the applicant could be considered to be a suspect within the meaning of its case-law, it is necessary to note that, as the Government acknowledged, when she made her 5:45 am statements to the public prosecutor, the applicant had formally acquired the status of a person under investigation. The Court therefore considers that there is no doubt that, at 5:45 am at the latest, the applicant was the subject of a criminal charge within the meaning of the Convention (Ibrahim and Others, cited above, § 296)."

If the facts of the case were different - if, for example, it was clear that there were no suspicions against Knox during the first questioning without a lawyer, and that she had indeed, without coercion or suggestion, knowingly and voluntarily made a statement considered to be incriminating to herself or another, without a lawyer, and that she had not later renounced those statements before she had a lawyer and also when she had a lawyer - then her conviction for calunnia for making that statement might not be considered by the ECHR to be a violation of Article 6.1 with 6.3c.

But the facts of the case, compared to well-established ECHR case-law, compel the ECHR conclusion that there was indeed a violation of Article 6.1 with 6.3c, and Italy must, according to its treaty obligations under the Convention (which are thus international law) redress that violation by dismissing the case (legally equivalent to an acquittal, in that the record of conviction is struck-out) or acquitting Knox of calunnia. This conclusion will not change even if Italy succeeds in obtaining a referral to the Grand Chamber.

The point is, that contrary to Bill's post, the ECHR case-law requires a detailed assessment of the applicant's status at the time of the impugned statement.

BTW, the French text in paragraph 150, "la Cour s’interroge donc sur le point de savoir si, au moment des auditions ...." could be literally translated as "the Court asks itself, therefore, on the issue of knowing if, at the time of the hearings ...." but the better translation is "the Court raises the question whether, at the time of the hearings ...."

 

[Bill Williams]

I think Bill's argument is mostly correct; however, the ECHR does pay attention to the status of any applicant who complains of having been convicted based on a statement made during questioning without a lawyer. The ECHR seeks to determine whether that person was a suspect - according to the ECHR's definition, not merely that of the state, during that time.

Mine was only marginally related to ECHR.

What both Follain in his book, as well as Mignini in both his Netflix comments as well as his words to Drew Griffin in 2010's CNN interview reveal is Mignini's creepy-paternalistic actions towards Knox.

And I do mean creepy.

In the CNN interview he recounts arriving in the interrogation room shortly after the 1:45am "confession". He makes an overt point that even though no words had been exchanged, that he miraculously sensed that Knox had had a giant psychological "burden" lifted from her by what had transpired by 1:45 am.

But Mignini did not mean this psychologically - he viewed himself as almost priest-like, humbly offering himself as a father confessor. All she needed to do was continue making "spontaneously statements (confessions)" and he would act as only a notary.

Follain in his subsequent book captures this, as he notes that Mignini (with an implied regret) viewed Knox very quickly bonding with her lawyers - on first meeting with them at the hearing 48 hours later - and that more importantly....

Amanda avoided the prosecutor's gaze...​

As if the wished for intimate relation between father confessor and penitent had now been irretrievably damaged.

Even these accounts from the prosecution side of the fence are simply creepy. And that's just by reading Mignini's and Follain's own words.

But you are correct, Numbers. This perhaps has little to do with ECHR, except that it matters little **when** Sollecito and Knox were considered suspects; the rights accorded suspects in Italy weren't delivered to them until Nov 8 allowing time for the Tabloid fantasies to take root unopposed.

 

[TomG]

First, I interpret TomG's post as suggesting or claiming that the police and prosecutor Mignini knew or suspected prior to the interrogations of Nov. 5/6, 2007 that Rudy Guede was the (likely) perpetrator, and that Knox, Sollecito, and Lumumba were drawn in as suspects or framed by those authorities in order for the authorities to hide their responsibility in negligently or corruptly not arresting Guede after his apprehension in the Milan nursery school break-in (illegal entry).

TomG's statements are, in my view, speculative but not unreasonable. However, I will suggest that one can also speculate that the police and Mignini drew in or framed Knox, Sollecito, and Lumumba simply because they were "convenient suspects". (Mignini may have had other psychological motivations, such as misogyny.) Choosing them was quick and didn't require much real investigative effort, such as looking for the actual knife that killed Meredith Kercher or searching for the rapist whose DNA would match the male DNA in her vagina. It's doubtful that without the help of Guede's friend Benedetti alerting them, the police would have considered Guede a suspect.

They would have had to be the dumbest cops ever if they didn't strongly suspect or know outright that it was Rudy from the start. What kind of burglar would breeze into the offices of Brocchi-Palazzoli, and expect to be believed when he told them he bought the cellphone and laptop from some geezer at the Milan train station? There's no doubt that he'd been briefed by the cops to do so. The Brocchi-Palazzoli office got their laptop back later from the cops (FGOB page 129). If you get caught illegally entering a nursery with items of previous burglaries on your posession, you'd want to lie low for a few weeks before trying another burglary, but no Rudy audaciously breaks into VDP and the rest is history.

They knew it was Rudy, the only reason the cops interviewed others was to foist their protection of Rudy (which was now a liability) onto suitable soft targets namely K&S. My theory is that if you find the earliest point that Mignini says someone is being protected, he is inadvertantly exposing the cops and ultimately his own role in the protection of Rudy, which for me is on the 2nd of Nov when Meredith is found and the staged break-in theory is established. It's basic psychological projection. I've already mentioned that in Machiavelli's uploaded YouTube interview with Mignini and others, Manuala Comodi states that Mignini was "dragged in personally". The comment isn't followed up but ther's no doubt in my mind that Comodi is unwittingly exposing that there was a special relationship with Rudy that was being protected. If anyone thinks there are other reasons for Mignini to be "dragged in personally" you can let me know.

Hoots

 

[TruthCalls]

There were 80 phones bugged and 3 'environmental' bugs...locations such as Le Chic, the questura (I assume the waiting room), ). You can get a list of these if you go to the link below and look for the 'intercept -RITs' under each date. For example, Bonassi's, Silenzi's, and the questura were filed on Nov. 2, 2007, and Knox's, several more at the questura, Sollecito's, Mezzetti's and Romanelli's were on Nov. 3, 2007. Just check under each date.

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/File_library:_Files_by_chronology

Thanks Stacy. I'm not sure where the 80 phones come from, unless they were done after 6 Nov. In the General Investigative Activity reports, from 2-6 Nov, 2007 there were three requests for Phone Intercepts. One included 3 numbers, one included 12 and the third included 5 numbers (three for Crugliano). There were intercept summaries for Mezzetti and Bonassi, although I didn't find their numbers in the requests. That means there were taps requested on 22 phones during the period of 2-6 Nov. This somewhat supports LJ's 'broad net' theory, however -- of the phones that were tapped, the only transcriptions that I can find were for Amanda and Raffaele. There are six other intercept summaries (i.e., logging of incoming and outgoing voice and sms) included in the reports but none of them were transcribed.

Below is a summary of the General Investigative Activity reports from 2 Nov - 6 Nov. I've captured only those activities that are related to phone intercepts and private data collection (i.e., notes, emails, etc.). I've not included anything specific to Meredith as those activities are to be expected. I also left out depositions, requests and other basic police activity.

I may be totally misinterpreting these reports, or the reports may only tell part of the story, but as best as I can tell the focus was always on Amanda and Raffaele. By 5 Nov the entire investigation (per the report, anyway) was focused solely on them. To me it is clear these activity reports prove they were the primary suspects prior to the interrogation. YMMV.


2 Nov:

2007-11-02-Log-cellphone-Knox-2007-11-01-to-2007-11-02-only.pdf
2007-11-02-Log-cellphone-Knox-SollecitoR-2007-11-01-to-2007-11-02-only.pdf
2007-11-02-Log-cellphone-Vodafone-table-Romanelli-IMEI.pdf
2007-11-02-Notice-Postal-Police-tracing-cellphone-to-Romanelli.pdf
2007-11-02-Notice-Prosecutor-ordering-intercept-RIT-1196-07-Questura-room.pdf
2007-11-02-Notice-Prosecutor-ordering-phone-log-Lana.pdf
2007-11-02-to-2007-11-17-Intercept-RIT-1197-07-cellphone-Bonassi-summaries.pdf (233)
2007-11-02-to-2007-11-17-Intercept-RIT-1199-07-cellphone-Bonassi-summaries.pdf (37)
2007-11-02-to-2007-11-18-Intercept-RIT-1194-07-cellphone-Silenzi-summaries.pdf (518)
2007-11-02-Writings-Knox-days-notes.pdf
2007-11-02-Writings-Knox-days-notes-and-police-translation.pdf

3 Nov:

2007-11-03-Email-Knox-Seiber-exchange-and-police-translation.pdf
2007-11-03-Intercept-RIT-1196-07-Questura.pdf
2007-11-03-Intercept-RIT-1205-07-cellphone-Knox-1654.pdf
2007-11-03-Intercept-RIT-1205-07-cellphone-Knox-2057.pdf
2007-11-03-Log-cellphone-Telecom-Zaroli.pdf
2007-11-03-Log-cellphone-Vodafone-SollecitoR.pdf
2007-11-03-Log-cellphone-Vodaphone-Altieri.pdf
2007-11-03-Log-cellphone-Vodaphone-Romanelli.pdf
2007-11-03-Notice-Police-asking-phone-intercepts-Khiri-Purton.pdf
2007-11-03-Notice-Prosecutor-opening-murder-case-assigning-Mignini.pdf
2007-11-03-Notice-Prosecutor-ordering-phone-logs.pdf
2007-11-03-to-2007-11-06-Intercept-RIT-1205-07-cellphone-Knox-original.pdf
2007-11-03-to-2007-11-09-Intercept-RIT-1205-07-cellphone-Knox-summaries.pdf (64)
2007-11-03-to-2007-11-16-Intercept-RIT-1206-07-cellphone-Sollecito.pdf
2007-11-03-to-2007-11-16-Intercept-RIT-1206-07-cellphone-Sollecito-summaries.pdf (85)
2007-11-03-to-2007-11-18-Intercept-RIT-1203-07-cellphone-Mezzetti-summaries.pdf (574)
2007-11-03-to-2007-11-18-Intercept-RIT-1204-07-cellphone-Romanelli-summaries.pdf (581)
2007-11-03-to-2007-11-20-Intercept-mixed-cellphone-and-prison-by-date-Knox.pdf
2007-11-03-to-2007-11-20-Intercept-mixed-cellphone-and-prison-by-date-Knox-Sollecito-incomplete.pdf
2007-11-03-to-2008-05-31-Intercept-mixed-phones-by-line-Sollecitofamily-original.pdf

4 Nov:

2007-11-04-Email-Knox-to-friends.pdf
2007-11-04-Email-Knox-to-friends-police-translation.pdf
2007-11-04-Intercept-RIT-1196-07-Questura-Knox-Sollecito-1630.pdf
2007-11-04-Intercept-RIT-1196-07-Questura-Knox-Sollecito-1630-1900.pdf
2007-11-04-Intercept-RIT-1196-07-Questura-Knox-Sollecito-1900.pdf
2007-11-04-Intercept-RIT-1205-07-cellphone-Knox-1038.pdf
2007-11-04-Intercept-RIT-1205-07-cellphone-Knox-2304.pdf
2007-11-04-Intercept-RIT-1206-07-cellphone-Sollecito-1629.pdf
2007-11-04-Log-cellphone-Kercher-Knox-text-messages-Police-translation-Italian.pdf
2007-11-04-to-2007-11-06-Intercept-RIT-1206-07-cellphone-Sollecito.pdf
2007-11-04-to-2007-11-09-Intercept-RIT-1210-07-cellphone-Knox-summaries.pdf (56)
2007-11-04-to-2007-11-10-Intercept-RIT-1209-07-cellphone-Khiri-summaries.pdf (3)
2007-11-04-to-2007-11-19-Intercept-RIT-1208-07-cellphone-Purton-summaries.pdf (194)
2007-11-04-Writings-Knox-school-exercise1.pdf
2007-11-04-Writings-Knox-school-exercise2.pdf

5 Nov:

2007-11-05-Intercept-RIT-1205-07-cellphone-Knox-0839.pdf
2007-11-05-Intercept-RIT-1205-07-cellphone-Knox-1218.pdf
2007-11-05-Intercept-RIT-1205-07-cellphone-Knox-1326.pdf
2007-11-05-Intercept-RIT-1205-07-cellphone-Knox-1327.pdf
2007-11-05-Intercept-RIT-1205-07-cellphone-Knox-1526.pdf
2007-11-05-Intercept-RIT-1205-07-cellphone-Knox-1630.pdf
2007-11-05-Intercept-RIT-1205-07-cellphone-Knox-1632.pdf
2007-11-05-Intercept-RIT-1205-07-cellphone-Knox-1634.pdf
2007-11-05-Intercept-RIT-1205-07-cellphone-Knox-1715.pdf
2007-11-05-Intercept-RIT-1205-07-cellphone-Knox-1719.pdf
2007-11-05-Intercept-RIT-1205-07-cellphone-Knox-1800.pdf
2007-11-05-Intercept-RIT-1205-07-cellphone-Knox-1812.pdf
2007-11-05-Intercept-RIT-1205-07-cellphone-Knox-1819.pdf
2007-11-05-Intercept-RIT-1205-07-cellphone-Knox-1904.pdf
2007-11-05-Intercept-RIT-1205-07-cellphone-Knox-2229.pdf
2007-11-05-Intercept-RIT-1205-07-cellphone-Knox-2246.pdf
2007-11-05-Intercept-RIT-1205-07-cellphone-Knox-2246b.pdf
2007-11-05-Intercept-RIT-1206-07-cellphone-Sollecito-1055.pdf
2007-11-05-Intercept-RIT-1206-07-cellphone-Sollecito-1157.pdf
2007-11-05-Intercept-RIT-1206-07-cellphone-Sollecito-1205.pdf
2007-11-05-Intercept-RIT-1206-07-cellphone-Sollecito-1211.pdf
2007-11-05-Intercept-RIT-1206-07-cellphone-Sollecito-1213.pdf
2007-11-05-Intercept-RIT-1206-07-cellphone-Sollecito-1232.pdf
2007-11-05-Intercept-RIT-1206-07-cellphone-Sollecito-1320.pdf
2007-11-05-Intercept-RIT-1206-07-cellphone-Sollecito-1406.pdf
2007-11-05-Intercept-RIT-1206-07-cellphone-Sollecito-1500.pdf
2007-11-05-Intercept-RIT-1206-07-cellphone-Sollecito-1734.pdf
2007-11-05-Intercept-RIT-1206-07-cellphone-Sollecito-1748.pdf
2007-11-05-Intercept-RIT-1206-07-cellphone-Sollecito-1834.pdf
2007-11-05-Intercept-RIT-1206-07-cellphone-Sollecito-1905.pdf
2007-11-05-Intercept-RIT-1206-07-cellphone-Sollecito-2049.pdf
2007-11-05-Intercept-RIT-1206-07-cellphone-Sollecito-2143.pdf
2007-11-05-Intercept-RIT-1206-07-cellphone-Sollecito-2246.pdf
2007-11-05-Intercept-RIT-1206-07-cellphone-Sollecito-2311.pdf
2007-11-05-Intercept-RIT-1206-07-cellphone-Sollecito-2312.pdf
2007-11-05-Intercept-RIT-1206-07-cellphone-Sollecito-2329.pdf
2007-11-05-Intercept-RIT-1206-07-cellphone-Sollecito-2359.pdf
2007-11-05-Log-cellphone-Vodaphone-SollecitoR.pdf
2007-11-05-Log-phone-Telecom-SollecitoR.pdf
2007-11-05-to-2008-06-05-Intercept-mixed-phones-by-line-Knox-Sollecitofamily-original.pdf
2007-11-05-Writings-Knox-school-exercise3.pdf

6 Nov:

2007-11-06-Intercept-RIT-1205-07-cellphone-Knox-0722.pdf
2007-11-06-Intercept-RIT-1205-07-cellphone-Knox-1159.pdf
2007-11-06-Intercept-RIT-1205-07-cellphone-Knox-1524.pdf
2007-11-06-Intercept-RIT-1206-07-cellphone-Sollecito-1033.pdf
2007-11-06-Intercept-RIT-1206-07-cellphone-Sollecito-1055.pdf
2007-11-06-Intercept-RIT-1206-07-cellphone-Sollecito-1122.pdf
2007-11-06-Intercept-RIT-1206-07-cellphone-Sollecito-1133.pdf
2007-11-06-Intercept-RIT-1206-07-cellphone-Sollecito-1151.pdf
2007-11-06-Intercept-RIT-1206-07-cellphone-Sollecito-1208.pdf
2007-11-06-Intercept-RIT-1206-07-cellphone-Sollecito-1220.pdf
2007-11-06-Intercept-RIT-1206-07-cellphone-Sollecito-1223.pdf
2007-11-06-Intercept-RIT-1206-07-cellphone-Sollecito-1251.pdf
2007-11-06-Intercept-RIT-1206-07-cellphone-Sollecito-1621.pdf
2007-11-06-Intercept-RIT-1206-07-cellphone-Sollecito-1717.pdf
2007-11-06-Log-cellphone-Knox-text-messages-on-SIM-card.pdf
2007-11-06-Log-cellphone-Vodaphone-Knox.pdf
2007-11-06-Log-cellphone-Vodaphone-Knox-with-handwritten-notes.pdf