• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mary_H said:
Huh? Hold on there, pal -- I will argue that Raffaele's statements were coerced. I sure hope you are not Mr. D's only source of information on this topic, because most of what you have written here is highly questionable, to say the least.
Click to expand...

Hang on here. Nothing I wrote above was dependent on what stilcho wrote in a later post. I had a notion from which I am attempting to build a hypothetical scenario which fits much of the available information while remaining independent of any preconceived notions and loaded arguments.

So far the scenario goes something like this:

1) There is a brutal murder with sexual overtones of a young adult female. The police would naturally be profiling at least one male perpetrator.

2) Knox and Sollecito were the first known persons at the scene after the crime. Parts of the scene were subsequently disturbed (by Knox showering, Kercher's door being knocked down, etc).

Therefore Knox and Sollecito are key witnesses because the time of their arrival puts a critical limit on the time of the crime, plus they can describe to investigators the scene as it looked before it was disturbed. This means nailing down their stories in detail is very important; especially Sollecito's as any discrepancies or holes in his story could be seized upon by the perpetrators' defense attorney as potentially exculpatory. (Knox, as a female resident would in this sense be less important, since her hair, fibers, fingerprints and DNA would be expected throughout the residence)

3) Knox and Sollecito do not attend the vigil for Kercher. Not necessarily suspicious, but certainly an outlier in deviation from expected behavior.

4) Sollecito is asked to the Questura for an interview the night of the 5th. Knox tags along and waits, does homework etc, while Sollecito's interview begins.

I think it's safe and fairly uncontroversial to posit that at this point the police consider Sollecito to be a "person of interest." I also think it's highly defensible to claim the police view Knox as being of significantly less interest.

Now here's where the order of events becomes important, and I engage in some speculation.

a) Sollecito "drops Knox's alibi" by saying they were not together all night.*
The police, already viewing Sollecito "with interest" view this as Sollecito dropping Sollecito's alibi; In other words he is now saying that his whereabouts for part of the night cannot be corroborated by Knox.

At some point Knox's interview begins. Sollecito's story change is either already known to the interviews or becomes known to them during the interview.

b) The police discover Knox's outgoing text message to Lumumba. Due to a language barrier, they misunderstand Knox's intended meaning and assume the message confirms Sollecito's changed story by indicating that Knox left Sollecito alone to meet with someone else.

c) The police take this interpretation to Sollecito and claim to him that Knox has said that he could have committed the crime.

d) Meanwhile, Knox denies meeting anyone that night, which the police view as her covering up for Sollecito and continue the interview, considering her not as a suspect for the crime, but as someone covering up for a potential suspect. So they pressure her not with the intent to make her confess to involvement in Kercher's murder, but to make her drop Sollecito's alibi (and incidentally provide herself with an independent alibi - namely the person they thought she met up with!)

e) Knox "accuses" Lumumba.*

There.

I think this (hypothetical) scenario is fairly consistent with what both sides would accept as probably true about the interviews. If largely true, it would neither prove nor disprove either's guilt as there is still room at a) and e) for coersion or lies.

What it does do is demonstrate that there are reasonable circumstances by which e) could have come about without

I) the police suspecting Knox of direct involvement in Kercher's murder prior to her interview on the night of the 5th. (Which is something some Verdict-supporters+ have suggested, but I don't buy)

or

II) the police being "out to get" Knox prior to and during her interview on the 5th. (An assertion by some Knox-supporters that I also don't buy)




+ I'm trying this out as a more neutral and less loaded term than "guilters," "Knox-detractors" etc.
 
I was reading through an old blog entry at Perugia Shock in which Frank summarizes Dalla Vedova's summing up at the end of the trial, and this bit seemed relevant to the time the interrogation started:
But that night it was a matter of minutes. She just had to wait for Raffaele finishing his interview and then she could finally go rest. In her dreams.
At the end of that conversation with Filomena an officer called her and, instead of her rest, instead of her dreams, her nightmare began.
Click to expand...

So it seems as if Dalla Vedova said in his summing up that Amanda's interrogation began immediately after the call to Filomena, when she said "someone wants to talk to me". If he's right, that puts the time for that first interrogation as 22.29-01.45, about 3 and a quarter hours.
 
stilicho said:
That's true. I don't think we know why they decided to interview her since she hadn't been called in to begin with. If we had to guess, there must have been something Raffaele said before he openly recanted his alibi for her. It's plausible that his story began to change slowly as the contradictions mounted.

The main point I was trying to make is that the police--if they were out to get Amanda--did it by the most circuitous route possible. They didn't invite her to the Questura in the first place and she wasn't the one who withdrew her alibi first.
Click to expand...

Giobbi asked for Amanda and Raffaele. Amanda may have been confused but Giobbi wasn't. Giobbi stated that he was mathematically certain that he asked for Amanda and Raffaele.

Your entire assessment is based on confusion of whether or not Amanda was expected for questioning on the night of the 5th.
 
GrouchoMarxist said:
From the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin Jan. 2005

Focus on Investigations
Homicide Investigative Strategies
By John B. Edwards



http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/...05/jan2005.htm
http://www.fbi.gov/filelink.html?fil...5/jan05leb.pdf

I've never been able to understand why Guede, Lamumba and Curatolo were not identified, located, and interviewed - early in the investigation.
Click to expand...


Maybe because real life doesn't always comply with the textbooks, and doesn't always measure up to TV show standards.

Patrick may well have been ID'd early ... as an employer. Until he was explicitly fingered by Knox there wouldn't have been any particular reason to single him out early on as a suspect. Guede wasn't a regular associate. Interviews could have easily not mentioned him in the early stages. Some witnesses are not always available or uncovered on Day One or even Day Two or Three.

Armchair quarterbacking and 20/20 hindsight is the lazy man's argument. Quoting from textbooks sounds authoritative, but means less when applied to reality. I doubt that very many investigations from the real world would fit into a neat one hour format ... with time out for commercials.

In spite of much handwaving I've seen little to suggest that this particular investigation suffered from the sort of massive blunders and evil conspiracy so loudly alleged by those who cannot contemplate the idea that Knox may actually be complicit in this crime. Or allow any such suggestion to go unchallenged by whatever means available, no matter how exaggerated. It seems more to be a few of the hairy warts of real life seized upon and magnified for the benefit of rhetoric, combined with misdirection and misrepresentation.

I think we have perhaps even made a little progress here. No one seems to be arguing anymore that Knox was convicted "all because of a cartwheel". The 30, or 40, or 50 hours of brutal interrogation has now shrunk to 4, or 3, or maybe 1:45 hours of meanie cops saying confusing stuff in a harsh manner. The "primitive", "archaic", "third world" Italian judicial system has turned out to look pretty good compared to those of some of the xenophobes lambasting it.

I await the Massei Report translation with great interest. Perhaps there may be more primary source data available there than what we have been able to uncover in these threads. Much of the disagreement of fact we have left seems to be involved in conflicts among sources of less than stellar provenance, as well as in interpretation.

I am under no delusions that it will alter the positions of those who are already adamant in their beliefs ... on either side, but for me at least it may also provide some insight into why the jury (or judge's panel if you prefer) came to the decision they did.
 
Question to whomever may know.

The double DNA knife found in R.S.'s appartment, where abouts was it found?

I heard it was in a shoe box, but where in the appartment?

Thanx in advance
 
It has been brought up in several recent posts that Amanda Knox was not called to the Questura the night of the Nov 5. It has even been stated as a fact of things that are known for sure. I would like to challenge this idea.

The police already had Patrick Lumumba's name in mind. It may have been why they called them in for the interrogation. It also makes it more likely that the police suggested his name to Amanda Knox and not the other way around.

1. The police had the phone records and knew Amanda Knox had sent a text to Patrick Lumumba.

2. The police had AK under surveillance on Nov 4th, the day before the interrogation. During this time they witnessed AK and PL talking outside of Universita per Stranieri. The police later grilled both of them about this meeting. She told Patrick during this conversation that she couldn't work at the bar anymore because she was scared to go out at night.


There are also two powerful people who have stated that BOTH of them were called in that night.

Edgardo Giobbi -

Edgardo Giobbi, chief of Direzione Centrale Anticrimine of Rome said in court that on the evening of the 5th he gave the order to bring Amanda and Raffaele together at the police station.

"I'm mathematically sure that I gave that order, in that moment our attention was on Amanda and Raffaele, I decided that we needed to hear them together in order to study their reactions. We called them and they were eating in a pizzeria."

-----

Judge Claudia Matteini

"Your family lives in the Unitied States, so it would be extremely easy for you to leave the country," Matteini wrote. "The fact that you did not do so before you were arrested is totally irrelevant. We must remind you that your arrest was made very early, and was effected purposely before the arrival of your mother in order to avoid just such a possibility."


Amanda is not aware that she was called in also. By Nov 5th the police had already complained that they were always together and this behavior had made them suspicious. It could be that when they called Raffaele they knew she would come along anyway. I believe this interrogation was planned ahead of time and the police already had the name Patrick Lumumba in mind. They wanted to break her into telling them what she knew about his involvement.
 
Mr.D said:
I think this (hypothetical) scenario is fairly consistent with what both sides would accept as probably true about the interviews. If largely true, it would neither prove nor disprove either's guilt as there is still room at a) and e) for coersion or lies.

What it does do is demonstrate that there are reasonable circumstances by which e) could have come about without

I) the police suspecting Knox of direct involvement in Kercher's murder prior to her interview on the night of the 5th. (Which is something some Verdict-supporters+ have suggested, but I don't buy)
or
II) the police being "out to get" Knox prior to and during her interview on the 5th. (An assertion by some Knox-supporters that I also don't buy)
_________________________________________________________________

Greetings Mr. D,
I too have found the night of the 5th/6th very intersting, and I was especially dumbfounded to re-read of this:

May 16, 2008
Judge Claudia Matteini

"Your family lives in the Unitied States, so it would be extremely easy for you to leave the country," Matteini wrote. "The fact that you did not do so before you were arrested is totally irrelevant. We must remind you that your arrest was made very early, and was effected purposely before the arrival of your mother in order to avoid just such a possibility."

-"EFFECTED PURPOSELY BEFORE THE ARRIVAL OF YOUR MOTHER"!, etc.

To me, that tells me that the police were out to arrest Amanda Knox before her Mother arrived.
If so, why the heck DIDN'T the police audio/video record any of those interrogations that night of the 5th/6th?:confused:
Hmmm...
RWVBWL
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Mr.D said:
3) Knox and Sollecito do not attend the vigil for Kercher. Not necessarily suspicious, but certainly an outlier in deviation from expected behavior.

4)
a) Sollecito "drops Knox's alibi" by saying they were not together all night.*
Click to expand...

Just curious: Did they (or either one) give reasons (plausible or not) for not attending the vigil? And did Sollecito actually state as a certainty they weren't together all night, or did he simply say he fell asleep and therefore couldn't swear that Knox was with him all night (not quite the same thing)? (If he started with the second position and then adopted the first, I would wonder whether there might have been some police encouragement.)
 
Bob001 said:
Just curious: Did they (or either one) give reasons (plausible or not) for not attending the vigil? And did Sollecito actually state as a certainty they weren't together all night, or did he simply say he fell asleep and therefore couldn't swear that Knox was with him all night (not quite the same thing)? (If he started with the second position and then adopted the first, I would wonder whether there might have been some police encouragement.)
Click to expand...

I have to say that my current understanding of the situation is this: Sollecito was asked by the police to verify with certainty that a) he was at his apartment all evening/night, and b) Knox was with him at his apartment all evening/night. I believe he was unequivocal about his own presence at the apartment, and that he was initially equally unequivocal about AK's presence there.

However, I believe that the police then asked him a somewhat "philosophical" question: How could he be certain that AK had also been inside his apartment all night, when he had been asleep from around 11pm (say) until 9am (say)? Sollecito was then essentially obliged to agree that it was possible that AK had left the apartment as soon as he had fallen asleep.

I believe that the police then took this and distorted it into Sollecito "now" saying that he thought AK might have left the apartment during the evening/night. I believe that this is what the police then presented to AK in her interrogation, thus confusing and bewildering her as to why her boyfriend was seemingly "betraying" her - when he'd done nothing of the sort.
 
Draca said:
It has been brought up in several recent posts that Amanda Knox was not called to the Questura the night of the Nov 5. It has even been stated as a fact of things that are known for sure. I would like to challenge this idea.

The police already had Patrick Lumumba's name in mind. It may have been why they called them in for the interrogation. It also makes it more likely that the police suggested his name to Amanda Knox and not the other way around.

1. The police had the phone records and knew Amanda Knox had sent a text to Patrick Lumumba.

2. The police had AK under surveillance on Nov 4th, the day before the interrogation. During this time they witnessed AK and PL talking outside of Universita per Stranieri. The police later grilled both of them about this meeting. She told Patrick during this conversation that she couldn't work at the bar anymore because she was scared to go out at night.


There are also two powerful people who have stated that BOTH of them were called in that night.

Edgardo Giobbi -

Edgardo Giobbi, chief of Direzione Centrale Anticrimine of Rome said in court that on the evening of the 5th he gave the order to bring Amanda and Raffaele together at the police station.

"I'm mathematically sure that I gave that order, in that moment our attention was on Amanda and Raffaele, I decided that we needed to hear them together in order to study their reactions. We called them and they were eating in a pizzeria."

-----

Judge Claudia Matteini

"Your family lives in the Unitied States, so it would be extremely easy for you to leave the country," Matteini wrote. "The fact that you did not do so before you were arrested is totally irrelevant. We must remind you that your arrest was made very early, and was effected purposely before the arrival of your mother in order to avoid just such a possibility."


Amanda is not aware that she was called in also. By Nov 5th the police had already complained that they were always together and this behavior had made them suspicious. It could be that when they called Raffaele they knew she would come along anyway. I believe this interrogation was planned ahead of time and the police already had the name Patrick Lumumba in mind. They wanted to break her into telling them what she knew about his involvement.
Click to expand...

I agree with your analysis here. I believe that the police were very suspicious of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito from about the 3rd November onwards. I believe that from that point onwards, they started to engage in "scenario fulfillment" - in other words they looked for evidence to support their belief in AK/RS's culpability, and they also constructed the interviews of the 5th/6th to support these beliefs. I also believe that they knew that the text was to Lumumba well prior to the 5th/6th interrogation (but that they didn't know what the text actually said), and I believe that they'd provisionally come to the following conclusion prior to calling AK/RS into the station on that night: I think the police thought that AK and Lumumba were definitely involved in the assault/murder, and that RS was either also directly involved, or that he was so besotted with AK that he helped cover for her.

I think that the interrogations of the 5th/6th were carefully planned. I think that the first job was to use sophistry to get RS to admit that he couldn't be sure where AK was while he was asleep. I believe that the plan was then to present this to AK as the "devastating" news that her boyfriend had now changed his story, and was now saying that she might have left the apartment during the murder night. I believe that the police then asked to see the text message, and engaged in further "scenario fulfillment" when they saw what it said. For the police, the text confirmed their belief that AK been involved with Lumumba. And the fact that AK was denying that she'd made plans to meet anybody that night, coupled with at least an initial uncertainty over who she'd sent the text to, further cemented the police's beliefs.

I'm not suggesting a willful intent by the police to "get" Knox - far from it. I'm suggesting that the police made certain assumptions too early on in the investigation. And that from then on they made the mistake of looking at the case through the lens of AK's, RS's and Lumumba's involvement. I believe that, to the police, everything they learned between the 3rd and the 6th November "confirmed" to them that their assessment was correct. I believe that there was no critical "correcting voice" to tell them that they might be engaging in confirmation bias, and that there might be a very different way to interpret the evidence.
 
Calling 6 years in the slammer for defamation said in court about two slaps on the back of the head "archaic" is not xenophobia. It's a value judgment on a policy within a judicial system, and has nothing to do with the fact that rule exists in the country of Italy. Same goes for introducing a Daily Mail article as evidence against character. And for not screening jurors for bias whatsoever. And a multitude of other things.

The fake cries of xenophobia are really hilarious. If a Canadian is against the death penalty in America, does that make him a xenophobe. By the lame standards declared on this forum, the answer to that is yes.

Stilicho, I would have to say by some of the xenophobe standards going around, that you would probably fit under this definition as well for criticizing the perjury laws in the United States the other day.

In fact, I personally happen to be against the Death Penalty, which several states still have here in the good ol' USA. Some would call this practice "archaic". So I guess I hate my country too. I'm also not a big fan the communist party in China, so I am pretty xenophobic about that country too.

etc. etc. etc.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
Question to whomever may know.

The double DNA knife found in R.S.'s appartment, where abouts was it found?

I heard it was in a shoe box, but where in the appartment?

Thanx in advance
Click to expand...

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/401876_Knoxvogt01.html

Armando Finzi, an assistant in the Perugia police department's organized crimes unit, first discovered the knife in Sollecito's kitchen drawer. He said the first thing he noticed upon entering the place was a "strong smell of bleach." He opened the drawer and saw "very shiny and clean" knife lying on top of the silverware tray.

"It was the first knife I saw," he said. When pressed on cross-examination, said his "investigative intuition" led him to believe it was the murder weapon because it was compatible with the wound as it had been described to him. With gloved hands, he placed the knife in a new police envelope, taped it shut with Scotch tape, then placed it inside a folder, he said. There were smaller and bigger knives in the drawer, but no others were taken into evidence from the kitchen, he said. A small knife was taken into evidence from Sollecito's bedroom, along with other items.

Homicide unit captain Stefano Gubbiotti then testified later at police headquarters he took the knife out of the envelope (also while wearing gloves) and placed it in a cardboard box he had in his office before it would be sent to Rome for forensic analysis.
Click to expand...
 
I also believe that the police were suspicious of Amanda and Raffaele prior to The 5th/sixth of November. And, rightly so, IMO. Their behaviour, on it's own, was very strange. I don't believe they suspected Amanda, in the beginning. I think they did believe that she was protecting someone. Who, they had no idea. I belive in Raffaele's diary, he mentions that Amanda knew some bad people. During the interviews, with Raffaele destroying their alibi's, suspicion solidified. The behaviour of the Police changed from treating Amanda as a protector, to a suspect. Amanda must have sensed the change, and then found out that Raffaele had thrown her under the bus. She just had to speak to Raffaele, and said the first name that came to her hed. And, embellished it. I don't think for a moment, that she thought it would be a big problem for Patrick. But, from that moment on, it snowballed.
 
Mr.D said:
What it does do is demonstrate that there are reasonable circumstances by which e) could have come about without

I) the police suspecting Knox of direct involvement in Kercher's murder prior to her interview on the night of the 5th. (Which is something some Verdict-supporters+ have suggested, but I don't buy)

or

II) the police being "out to get" Knox prior to and during her interview on the 5th. (An assertion by some Knox-supporters that I also don't buy)
Click to expand...

I am not trying to subvert your cause, Mr D.

We know that early on, Meredith's British friends told the police they thought Amanda was involved in the crime. And what I meant about Raffaele being somewhere unexpected around 12:30 on 02 NOV 2007 was his being outside the cottage with Amanda. Their story to police was that they intended to travel to Gubbio that day. They were alarmed about the state of the cottage but not enough to wait to call the police or for Amanda to linger for an extended period in the crimescene.

I don't think the police suspected Amanda murdered her roommate at all before 06 NOV 2007 and they probably still thought she was involved to some extent after her arrest. It was Raffaele who was taciturn and unhelpful in almost every way. He was the one carrying a knife to the Questura.

@GrouchoMarxist: I've never been able to understand why Guede, Lamumba and Curatolo were not identified, located, and interviewed - early in the investigation.

You can include all the witnesses and various characters associated with the crime. When you look at the location of Via Pergola, you can understand to some extent why the police would have been overwhelmed with priorities. It is not in the centre of the city with a lot of neighbourhood traffic. The logical place to begin was with the roommates and those across the road above the car park. And then to include those Meredith knew from college.

I thought it was unusual that they didn't interview Patrick earlier either and nobody has ever produced any evidence that the police even talked to him before coming to arrest him. I'd agree that sounds like an oversight. It is possible that Meredith's British friends didn't mention that she worked for him. This was under the table so there would be no reason to mention it unless they asked specifically.

@Draca: The police already had Patrick Lumumba's name in mind.

I can follow your logic but it's missing one crucial element. They didn't interview him before Amanda told them that he murdered Meredith. How, exactly, could they guarantee that she would blurt his name out and, furthermore, sign twice that she acknowledged that fact? Did they hypnotise Amanda?

What possible explanation is there for them knowing Patrick's name ahead of time, not interviewing him, and depending entirely on a series of unpredictable events by which Raffaele hands in Amanda and Amanda fingers Patrick?
 
Bob001 said:
Just curious: Did they (or either one) give reasons (plausible or not) for not attending the vigil? And did Sollecito actually state as a certainty they weren't together all night, or did he simply say he fell asleep and therefore couldn't swear that Knox was with him all night (not quite the same thing)? (If he started with the second position and then adopted the first, I would wonder whether there might have been some police encouragement.)
Click to expand...


There are some reports that some or all of the young people who were present when Meredith's body was discovered avoided the memorial service in order to evade the press. Does anyone know whether anyone who was at the scene of the crime attended the memorial service? That would include Filomena Romanelli, Paola Grande, Luca Altieri and Marco Zaroli. Does anyone know whether any the other residents of the cottage attended the memoiral service?
 
You know, LondonJohn, all Amanda had to say was " I was at home with Raffaele." Every single time. Unchanged fact. Six words. Over and over again. No problem about being confused, or can't remembers. 6 WORDS!! Maybe you can't remeber what you ate, or what you saw on TV. Or phone calls. But you remember, always, if you didn't go out. Unless you are comotose. No??
 
Mr.D said:
Hang on here. Nothing I wrote above was dependent on what stilcho wrote in a later post. I had a notion from which I am attempting to build a hypothetical scenario which fits much of the available information while remaining independent of any preconceived notions and loaded arguments.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply anything about you when I wrote that; you were just the last person stilicho responded to.

I think your hypothetical scenario deserves consideration, especially this part:

I think it's safe and fairly uncontroversial to posit that at this point the police consider Sollecito to be a "person of interest." I also think it's highly defensible to claim the police view Knox as being of significantly less interest.

Now here's where the order of events becomes important, and I engage in some speculation.

a) Sollecito "drops Knox's alibi" by saying they were not together all night.*
The police, already viewing Sollecito "with interest" view this as Sollecito dropping Sollecito's alibi; In other words he is now saying that his whereabouts for part of the night cannot be corroborated by Knox.

At some point Knox's interview begins. Sollecito's story change is either already known to the interviews or becomes known to them during the interview.

b) The police discover Knox's outgoing text message to Lumumba. Due to a language barrier, they misunderstand Knox's intended meaning and assume the message confirms Sollecito's changed story by indicating that Knox left Sollecito alone to meet with someone else.

c) The police take this interpretation to Sollecito and claim to him that Knox has said that he could have committed the crime.

d) Meanwhile, Knox denies meeting anyone that night, which the police view as her covering up for Sollecito and continue the interview, considering her not as a suspect for the crime, but as someone covering up for a potential suspect. So they pressure her not with the intent to make her confess to involvement in Kercher's murder, but to make her drop Sollecito's alibi (and incidentally provide herself with an independent alibi - namely the person they thought she met up with!)

e) Knox "accuses" Lumumba.*
Click to expand...


This would help explain why the cops were so adversarial toward Raffaele as soon as they got him there:

Sollecito told jurors he had asked that his questioning be suspended multiple times to no avail. Police also took his shoes without explaining why and left him barefoot for hours.

"I asked for a lawyer and I was told no. I was taken to jail, put in a cell and never allowed to talk with a lawyer, my father or anyone until I went before the investigating judge."

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/401876_Knoxvogt01.html

Although there is a lot of evidence that the police were after Patrick and were prepared to arrest him, for them to go through Raffaele to get to Amanda to get to Patrick does seem like an unnecessarily circuitous route I'm not sure the police were capable of planning. Amanda would have cooperated with them if they had simply asked to see her phone.

A description of the "threesome" fantasy scenario was ready for the press on November 6th, when each suspect had been in custody for mere hours. As London John points out, the police were engaging in confirmation bias.
 
Fiona said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...diths-dead-body-police-chief-tells-trial.html

Seems to be a typo or an error because it can only be 11pm since they were not there at 11 am. No time to look for more
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. I'm sure you know what I'm going to say now, but the media isn't always the most reliable source in the case! I don't know whether AK and RS were there at 11am, but I think they were there earlier on that day (IIRC that's when they were taken to a bugged room so their conversation could be recorded) so it is possible (though probably unlikely) it's referring to earlier that day.

But even if we take that newspaper report at face value, assume that the reporting is accurate, the 'am' is just a typo (which in itself creates a bit of doubt about accuracy) and that Napoleone herself is telling the truth, what she says isn't necessarily in conflict with the theory that the interrogation started after Amanda's phone call to Filomena at around 22.30. She says it was 'around 11am' (pm) - she's just making a rough estimate, and it could well have happened earlier than she thought. On the other hand, the phone call in which Amanda says "someone wants to talk to me" is recorded and has an accurate time stamp, so I'd argue more reliable evidence, especially in view of Dalla Vedova apparently saying this was when the interrogation started.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom