Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

Mignini did the interrogation. If there was something Amanda said that was incriminating he would have used it. Why do you think it is important?

Not only that, you can also be fairly confident that it would have been in the newspapers within days of the interrogation.....

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes,Mignini did it in the prison and in the presence of her lawyers

I think I'm right to say that there are unsubstantiated rumours doing the rounds (along the lines of "sources tell us that...." etc) that Knox was allegedly on the verge of some sort of full confession but that her lawyers terminated the questioning. But, yet again, none of this alleged lead-up to the "confession" was used in the trial. Perhaps the whole story is no more than wishful thinking on behalf of those who are convinced of her guilt.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Why not take the words as they were spoken?

when she says - I see the flash - she means 'flash' and not 'light'

Flash is the term for Video clip



(english-english /Platonov)

You would want to add a smiley - , because in an internet forum context some may get an impression you're saying it with a straight face

 

[LondonJohn]

I'm always a little intrigued by this fingerprint map. In Meredith's room there are plenty of her fingerprints, especially on the wardrobe which she would have accessed many times getting dressed every day, two of Giacomo and ONE only of Rudy Guede. In Laura's room there are plenty of Laura's prints and one of Raffaele on the back of her door (how did that get there???). In Amanda's room there are none of her own prints and in Filomena's there are only two of her own and nothing else not even on her window which she opened and closed many times (and supposedly Rudy climbed through), perhaps as much as Laura who many left fingerprints on hers, as did Meredith on hers.
I just find it interesting, not for any particular motive, just in and of itself. I would have expected more unattributed really.

I suspect that much of this is due to the differing suitability of the various surfaces to capture fingerprints. It's likely, for example, that Meredith's wardrobe doors were faced with a material that was very good at holding fingerprint deposits, whereas perhaps Filomena's wardrobe and window were not. In addition, where the same small area is subject to multiple contacts (eg a small window/shutter latch), fingerprints overlay each other and soon become unreadable.

And regarding Sollecito's fingerprint on the inside of Laura's door, I recall that Sollecito said he checked all the rooms of the house after he and Knox discovered the state of Filomena's room. To me, it seems as if Laura's door might have swung shut while he was inside her room, and that he therefore needed to grasp the interior door handle in order to re-open the door to get out again (he needn't have made any contact with the handle on the way into the room if the door was already ajar, since the door opens in towards the room).

 

[Katody Matrass]

That is funny and also sadly typical of the whole investigation. If Amanda said something incriminating in this particular interrogation, it would be in the Massei report. It was just a prosecution leak designed to make Amanda look bad. Her lawyers claim that she maintained her innocence is the only truth you can derive from it. There were a lot of false news reports about Amanda. This is another one.

Thanks, RoseMontague for reminding me that part.
I've reread the trial transcripts translated by thougtfhtful, and looks like Mignini repeated all the main points of the interrogation during the cross-examination, he even got carried away a bit and let himself slip something like "don't interrupt, I'm interrogating here"
Apart from some some dirty tricks he tried and for which the defense called him down there was nothing new; the "gotcha" questions about the body position, call to mother, and of course "why did you accuse Patrick". The answer to the last one perfectly confirms the internalized false confession scenario.

before that there is an account of the December 17 interrogation that platonov is so inexplicably fixated on

CDV: Getting back to the interrogation, with the pubblico ministero. Do
you remember that at a certain point it was interrupted?

AK: Yes.

CDV: Do you remember what happened?

AK: Yes. Um, after several hours, um, the pubblico ministero started
repeating the same questions, and it was as though I had gone right back to
the Questura at that moment. So I didn't feel at ease, it was like they
weren't listening to me any more, or hearing me, and so on the advice of the
lawyer, I stopped the examination.

CDV: Did you get exactly the same feeling that you had on the night of the
5th/6th?

AK: I was getting that feeling of frustration, yes.

And apparently Mignini had nothing to add or correct about it.

 

[RoseMontague]

Thanks, RoseMontague for reminding me that part.
I've reread the trial transcripts translated by thougtfhtful, and looks like Mignini repeated all the main points of the interrogation during the cross-examination, he even got carried away a bit and let himself slip something like "don't interrupt, I'm interrogating here"
Apart from some some dirty tricks he tried and for which the defense called him down there was nothing new; the "gotcha" questions about the body position, call to mother, and of course "why did you accuse Patrick". The answer to the last one perfectly confirms the internalized false confession scenario.

before that there is an account of the December 17 interrogation that platonov is so inexplicably fixated on

Quote:
CDV: Getting back to the interrogation, with the pubblico ministero. Do
you remember that at a certain point it was interrupted?

AK: Yes.

CDV: Do you remember what happened?

AK: Yes. Um, after several hours, um, the pubblico ministero started
repeating the same questions, and it was as though I had gone right back to
the Questura at that moment. So I didn't feel at ease, it was like they
weren't listening to me any more, or hearing me, and so on the advice of the
lawyer, I stopped the examination.

CDV: Did you get exactly the same feeling that you had on the night of the
5th/6th?

AK: I was getting that feeling of frustration, yes.

And apparently Mignini had nothing to add or correct about it.

Nice post and I agree. If I were to argue on the side of platonov however, I would claim a translation error in that news report. One of the Italian words for foot is fanteria, quite easily mistaken for fantasy (Italian-fantasia) or flashback in translation; so there you go with that inside straight. To me foot is the word she would have had to use.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Nice post and I agree. If I were to argue on the side of platonov however, I would claim a translation error in that news report. One of the Italian words for foot is fanteria, quite easily mistaken for fantasy (Italian-fantasia) or flashback in translation; so there you go with that inside straight. To me foot is the word she would have had to use.

To quote Massei, "it is possible and in fact probable"

 

[RoseMontague]

To quote Massei, "it is possible and in fact probable"

LOL,
I think instead of vedo i flash it may have actually been piedo i flash. Just a typo, surely.

To paraphrase a well known quote: There are three types of lies; lies, darn lies, and translations (OK he really said statistics). How could he have forgotten the typo?

The first magazine article I ever published appeared in Harper’s Monthly 31 years ago under the
name of (by typographical error) MacSwain.

 

[platonov]

Dec 07'

Sorry, I did not read your post exactly and mixed 07th Dec with 17th Dec.
**

Did some research, but could not find anything about Ms.Knox on this day,

5th = Report of the Corte di Riesame
6th = Interrogation of Raffaele (in prison) - at his demand, but then he
decided to keep silent and refused to answer
7th = arrival Rudy Hermannn Guede from Germany

**
can you give me a hint what you are looking for on that specific date?

MrsColumbo

My sincere apologies - Dec 07' is shorthand for Dec2007 referring to Dec 17.
You were right first time.

(about english-english = the problem is between the keyboard and the Computer)

Very good - but when I translate that back into english 'computer' is replaced by 'chair'.

 

[Mrs.Columbo]

LOL,
I think instead of vedo i flash it may have actually been piedo i flash. Just a typo, surely.

Piedo???? Do you mean piede (Foot) - that gives no sense at all??

***
Why not leave the words as they are. Ms. Knox at this time was a 20 yr. old University-student and I am fully convincend that she was able to express herself in a way everybody can understand.

 

[RoseMontague]

Piedo???? Do you mean piede (Foot) - that gives no sense at all??

***
Why not leave the words as they are. Ms. Knox at this time was a 20 yr. old University-student and I am fully convincend that she was able to express herself in a way everybody can understand.

Feet (piedo) seemed to be the better typo possibility. But you have convinced me.

 

[Fuji]

Even the prosecutor dismissed that story as nonsense. What it underlines, however, is the role media narratives and slow leaks of information were beginning to play in these judicial proceedings.

No, what that story underlines is that it may not behoove those convinced of Knox's innocence to utilize the testimony of Guede to buttress their claims when other parts of his testimony directly implicate Knox.

My post was in reply to this assertion by Kevin_Lowe:

"We have Rudy's word in his initial statement that he went into the bathroom after Meredith was stabbed and that he was the one who took the towels from the bathroom to the murder room, and the guilter response as far as I can recall is merely "Oh, but Rudy is unreliable". That is very far from being solid grounds to reject his claim - you can question it on those grounds, to be sure, but not reject it."

 

[platonov]

................
...................................................................

before that there is an account of the December 17 interrogation that platonov is so inexplicably fixated on

----------------

Quote:
CDV: Getting back to the interrogation, with the pubblico ministero. Do
you remember that at a certain point it was interrupted?

AK: Yes.

CDV: Do you remember what happened?

AK: Yes. Um, after several hours, um, the pubblico ministero started
repeating the same questions, and it was as though I had gone right back to
the Questura at that moment. So I didn't feel at ease, it was like they
weren't listening to me any more, or hearing me, and so on the advice of the
lawyer, I stopped the examination.

CDV: Did you get exactly the same feeling that you had on the night of the
5th/6th?

AK: I was getting that feeling of frustration, yes.

------------------------


And apparently Mignini had nothing to add or correct about it.

So on the Q of what AK had to say on Dec 17 as regard the 'internalized false confession' we have finally made some progress.
Kudos to Katody Matrass.

And its only taken 2 days - we shouldn't reproach ourselves however, AK had 6 weeks initially and was unable to provide an answer.

Now its her own testimony (from 2009) and at the hands of her own lawyer - who obviously felt the issue needed to be addressed.
Perhaps he too shares my fixation

The Dec 17 transcript was in the court dossier and indeed was referred to in open court so it could hardly be avoided.
The prosecution let her answers to her lawyer stand without comment - obviously feeling none was required.

So what did she say on Dec 17 - the 2009 transcript above is very clear.

She was unable to answer the Q and stopped the interview on the advice of her lawyer.

So when I earlier posted in response to a Q on this by Katody Matrass

I may have but on the advice of my lawyer I don't wish to answer any further questions on this issue on the grounds it may incriminate me (and get me 30 yrs).

Given 18 months I may be able to come up with a better response - whether it will be credible is a different matter.

I was not that far off the mark - Its seems my sources are good.


Continuing on the literary allusions - To paraphrase Wilde
"To be overcome by confusion/frustation Once when facing difficult Q's in a murder investigation is unfortunate. Twice is sheer carelessness (or worse)"

If it should happen a 3rd, 4th, 5th ....... time while giving evidence during your own trial you are probably going to end up singing Ballads in Gaol.

 

[Katody Matrass]

So what did she say on Dec 17 - the 2009 transcript above is very clear.

She was unable to answer the Q and stopped the interview on the advice of her lawyer.

There's a hole in your logic there, do you know what it is?

 

[RoseMontague]

So on the Q of what AK had to say on Dec 17 as regard the 'internalized false confession' we have finally made some progress.
Kudos to Katody Matrass.

And its only taken 2 days - we shouldn't reproach ourselves however, AK had 6 weeks initially and was unable to provide an answer.

Now its her own testimony (from 2009) and at the hands of her own lawyer - who obviously felt the issue needed to be addressed.
Perhaps he too shares my fixation

The Dec 17 transcript was in the court dossier and indeed was referred to in open court so it could hardly be avoided.
The prosecution let her answers to her lawyer stand without comment - obviously feeling none was required.

So what did she say on Dec 17 - the 2009 transcript above is very clear.

She was unable to answer the Q and stopped the interview on the advice of her lawyer.

So when I earlier posted in response to a Q on this by Katody Matrass




I was not that far off the mark - Its seems my sources are good.


Continuing on the literary allusions - To paraphrase Wilde
"To be overcome by confusion/frustation Once when facing difficult Q's in a murder investigation is unfortunate. Twice is sheer carelessness (or worse)"

I agree that you have certainly been begging the question and I rejoice that you have received the answer you have desired from the very beginning.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

On December 17th

Platonov,

This is (I hope) my final attempt to move the discussion of the interrogation on December 17th forward. We have established that Ms. Dempsey does speak Italian and that her description of Amanda’s testimony at her trial was accurate (thanks to Katy_did for finding this dialog). On page 238 of Murder in Italy, Candace Dempsey describes Amanda as finally answering Mignini's question of why she named Patrick through Mr. Mignini’s verbose badgering (Frank Sfarzo thought that PM Mignini sounded flustered). Amanda said because I was thinking it might be true. It was at this point that she burst into tears and her lawyers would not let her answer any more questions. Candace does not use quotes around this clause, so I am not taking it as being verbatim, but I do take Amanda’s choice of past tense seriously. Amanda is saying what she thought on November 5th, not what she thought on December 17th.

I think her statement backs up the idea that the Nov. 5 interrogation was poorly designed to uncover what actually did happen, as opposed to confirming what the police believed happened. Why would she think that it might be true? She could not know for sure where Patrick was, but she would have expected him to be at the bar. I also think that following the advice of one’s lawyers to fall silent is a mark of Ms. Knox’ growing good sense, not an indication of guilt.

 

[RoseMontague]

Platonov,

This is (I hope) my final attempt to move the discussion of the interrogation on December 17th forward. We have established that Ms. Dempsey does speak Italian and that her description of Amanda’s testimony at her trial was accurate (thanks to Katy_did for finding this dialog). On page 238 of Murder in Italy, Candace Dempsey describes Amanda as finally answering Mignini's question of why she named Patrick through Mr. Mignini’s verbose badgering (Frank Sfarzo thought that PM Mignini sounded flustered). Amanda said because I was thinking it might be true. It was at this point that she burst into tears and her lawyers would not let her answer any more questions. Candace does not use quotes around this clause, so I am not taking it as being verbatim, but I do see Amanda’s choice of past tense seriously. Amanda is saying what she thought on November 5th, not what she thought on December 17th.

I think her statement backs up the idea that the Nov. 5 interrogation was poorly designed to uncover what actually did happen, as opposed to confirming what the police believed happened. Why would she think that it might be true? She could not know for sure where Patrick was, but she would have expected him to be at the bar. I also think that following the advice of one’s lawyers to fall silent is a mark of Ms. Knox’ growing good sense, not an indication of guilt.

Since I am not even sure who the "sources" are that platonov is referring to and your post is not only well-sourced but makes sense within the context of her testimony I would have to agree with your opinion on this issue.

 

[LondonJohn]

A propos of nothing.....

I most definitely did not criticise John Kercher for wanting to write a book about his daughter and her death. In fact, I said that any such book would very probably be moving and an insight into the human condition, however, I thought that it would be (understandably) hard for John Kercher to approach the subject in a dispassionate or disinterested fashion.

The heart has its reasons, which reason does not know. We feel it in a thousand things. Except in deliberately misrepresenting other people's sentiments, it seems......

 

[LondonJohn]

Since I am not even sure who the "sources" are that platonov is referring to and your post is not only well-sourced but makes sense within the context of her testimony I would have to agree with your opinion on this issue.

What a strange diversion this has been. I'm still waiting for platonov to come up with the actual transcripts from the December 2007 interrogation, in order to support his/her line of argument here. Guess I might be waiting a while.

 

[platonov]

Platonov,

This is (I hope) my final attempt to move the discussion of the interrogation on December 17th forward. We have established that Ms. Dempsey does speak Italian and that her description of Amanda’s testimony at her trial was accurate (thanks to Katy_did for finding this dialog). On page 238 of Murder in Italy, Candace Dempsey describes Amanda as finally answering Mignini's question of why she named Patrick through Mr. Mignini’s verbose badgering (Frank Sfarzo thought that PM Mignini sounded flustered). Amanda said because I was thinking it might be true. It was at this point that she burst into tears and her lawyers would not let her answer any more questions. Candace does not use quotes around this clause, so I am not taking it as being verbatim, but I do take Amanda’s choice of past tense seriously. Amanda is saying what she thought on November 5th, not what she thought on December 17th.

I think her statement backs up the idea that the Nov. 5 interrogation was poorly designed to uncover what actually did happen, as opposed to confirming what the police believed happened. Why would she think that it might be true? She could not know for sure where Patrick was, but she would have expected him to be at the bar. I also think that following the advice of one’s lawyers to fall silent is a mark of Ms. Knox’ growing good sense, not an indication of guilt.

Since I am not even sure who the "sources" are that platonov is referring to and your post is not only well-sourced but makes sense within the context of her testimony I would have to agree with your opinion on this issue.

Well Rose Montague if its your opinion that Halides1 is correct in his opinion of what Candace Dempsey describes and Frank Sfarzo thought that's fine.
As I said earlier I don't wish to disparage anyone's opinion but testimony / transcripts are more compelling.

Halides1 - respectfully the discussion has been concluded for the moment (in your absence) thanks to Katody Matrass.

If I can borrow a term from Katody Matrass we are getting fixated on C Dempsey and Italian. Perhaps it was my fault but its not important.

In the words of J Cleese (London John earlier indicated he was a fan I think - apols if I have that wrong)

" Listen, don't mention the war! I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it all right. So! It's all forgotten now, and let's hear no more about it. "