Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[shuttlt]

Her accusation against Patrick is very vague, the only detail she provided that could be considered this way is the scream and in my mind, that is not shown to be conclusively proven. The cops should have looked at this and considered the very real possibility that this statement was not true simply because it was so lacking in detail. katy_did has shown that she was pressed for additional information (my opinion) and her additional statement provided little in the way of additional detail.

I've always assumed the cops didn't believe half of what was in the statement. They thought she was muddled up in it somehow and was ********ting them, possibly to minimize her involvement. So they just arrested her and Raffaele and Patrick while they straightened it out.

 

[shuttlt]

Recently, someone (I'm sorry I can't remember who it was or even how to look it up) made an excellent point about how the police stopped the questioning once they got Amanda to agree to the basics, and that this doesn't make any sense at all since there was so much more to know and so much more they could have questioned Amanda about. The cops were heavy on persuasion and light on curiosity.

She had incriminated herself. She was no longer a witness, but a suspect and therefore the prosecutor had to be called.

 

[shuttlt]

You must have missed our discussion earlier today about there being no evidence that Mignini was woken up or summoned to the station.

But we have only Amanda's word that he wasn't and Mignini's word (in the email I think) that she had wanted to make the statement to him.

I think they expected it to be allowed because they are not used to being questioned about their methods. They probably interrogate a lot of people without attorneys and usually get away with it, because the suspects are indigent or don't have a strong enough support system to follow up on things.

And they just pretend the prosecutor was present when the get to court? It is perfectly possible that the police don't always call a lawyer. Do we have evidence that interrogations on suspects done without the prosecutor, or a lawyer are normally admissible? It didn't seem very hard to get it ruled inadmissible.

At the time Mignini took the second statement from Amanda, she was not in a cell; she was still in the police station, although I don't think we know whether she was in the interrogation room or the waiting room.

She would have been in an interrogation room, I am sure. I don't see why it matters.

 

[Fuji]

...absolutely no evidence of blood on their clothes, or of missing clothes...

This is a completely specious assertion, given that there is no way for anyone other than AK & RS to know if any items of their clothing are missing.

And yet, I note how it is curious that you have no problem hypothesizing the existence of gloves for RG*, for which there is absolutely no evidence.

For you, there exists a dual standard whereby you assert (NOT demonstrate) that one set of defendants' wardrobes is knowable in its entirety while asserting the opposite for the third defendant. This is a textbook example of special pleading.

*LondonJohn goes even further, theorizing that RG also wore a heavy overcoat of some sort, as well as gloves.

 

[platonov]

It is to me, shuttlt. platonov wanted to make the case that Amanda told her mother she knew Patrick was innocent. He cited some testimony as proof of his assertion. That testimony, though, does not support his assertion. He highlighted these sections:

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

AK: Well, it's true that after several days in prison, I did come to realize that what I had imagined was nothing but imagination, not a confusion of reality. So I realized that he wasn't guilty of these things, and I felt really really bad that he had been arrested.

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

GCM: Excuse me, avvocato. To just return to this question. The defense is expressing his perplexity and we also feel it. You are saying: "I didn't know if Patrick was innocent or not." This is on the 6th and the 7th. But on the 10th, you essentially say that he's innocent. So what the defense lawyer is asking is, what happened in between to make you change your mind?To change your conviction about the role of Patrick? It's this.

AK: Well, yes. I knew he was in prison uniquely because of my words. At first I didn't know this. I thought the police somehow knew whether he was guilty or not. Since I didn't know, I was confused. But in the following days I realized that he was in prison only because of what I had said, and I felt guilty.

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

Even taken out of context as it is, What, How did that happen?? this testimony does not show Amanda saying she knows Patrick is innocent of the crime. She says first that she realized he was not guilty of the things she had accused him of (as far as she knew), and second, she says she [mistakenly] realized he was in prison because of what she said.

It supports platonov's point even less when put in context Why the mendacious edit so ??and considered with other parts of Amanda's testimony, especially where she says that she thought the fact that she let the police know she was not at the crime should have made it clear to them that her accusation of Patrick was not valid.

People make this argument primarily to A censure Amanda and her mother. They want to maintain that both Amanda and her mother knew Patrick was innocent, did nothing to get him out of prison, and therefore are bad people. The many reasons why this is an unsupportable claim have been repeated here a number of times.

added by platonov

Mary H

This is a transparently mendacious argument/post even by your standards.

The giveaway is when you C&P as opposed to providing a LINK.

The extract that you have posted is not what I posted - even the 'clever' use of the word highlighted doesn't work as you have not even posted what I highlighted but added & subtracted.

A Nonsense - the primary issue has nothing to do with censure. This was an important part of the testimony in a murder trial which went quite some way to exposing the self serving nature of the false accusation and the ever changing stories of one of the accused.

I wasn't originally making a claim - simply refuting yet another Foaker 'argument' [by London John in this case] by using direct testimony.

.

 

[Justinian2]

Yes.
[...]

Originally Posted by Justinian2

Say a person has five partial fingerprints in the crime room. The probability of the fingerprints belonging to the suspect would be additive, in some way. I mean each fingerprint would increase the probability that the suspect was in the room. Guede left multiple DNA samples in the murder room. The probability that he was in the room increases with every DNA sample found.​

You replied: Yes.

Originally Posted by Justinian2

Suppose a person left a trail of evidence to the murder scene. Suppose that there was a knife found in the home of the suspect. To prove it was used in the crime would require a comparison of the knife size to the size of the wounds. Expert testimony would be required. DNA samples on the knife would be part of the proof. It would have to be proved the knife was at the murder scene. See, all the evidence in a trail of evidence would be in series and would be not additive, but multiplied. Each probability less than one decreases the likelyhood that the suspected murder weapon is the actual murder weapon.​

You replied:

I disagree that you would HAVE TO prove that the knife was at the murder scene, unless you mean as a consequence of the DNA evidence. The evidence does weaken though, as you say, the more things that have to be true for the claim it is trying to prove to be true. Having said that, what are the probabilities here?

Then of course there is more than one piece of evidence, which are additive and none of them have to be in and of themselves particularly solid.​

You replied:

Guede's evidence is VERY solid.
Amanda's evidence is VERY slight.​

My reply:
Let me state this is a different way. Five pieces of evidence are not equal to five other pieces of evidence. Five solid evidences of one persons' DNA in various places in a room is more significant than five pieces of evidence that are necessary to prove ONE piece of evidence.

Several pieces of evidence are necessary to prove that the random knife picked from RS's house was the murder weapon.

To prove that the knife was the murder weapon you have to prove that:

1) The knife was at the scene of the crime when the murder took place.
2) The knife inflicted the wounds.
3) The suspect used the knife to inflict the wounds.
4) The knife had the victim's DNA on it.
5) The knife had the victim's blood on it.
6) The forensics lab was very, very clean and very very good.
7) None of the police were motivated to please someone that could effect their raises or promotions.

Consequently, you have to have at least five pieces of evidence to establish this one piece of evidence. Furthermore, the established piece of evidence is only as strong as the weakest evidence in the chain.

 

[Dan O.]

Here is a one out of a thousand stories that might have happened:

Meredith let's Rudy in. Things are fine at first, but very quickly go down hill. Amanda and Raffaele turn up (for one of a hundred reasons). Meredith wants to call the police an get Rudy arrested for sexual assault. Amanda and Raffaele try to calm things down, maybe they think she's over reacting. Meredith is hysterical and has to be restrained to prevent her calling the cops and is now accusing Amanda and Raffaele who are now convinced that she is over reacting. Rudy restrains Meredith while Amanda and Raffaele discuss what the heck they're going to do. Meredith breaks free, runs for the phone in her room and the whole thing ends with Rudy and a knife in Merediths room. After that, Rudy leaves, Amanda and Raffaele decide that the best thing to do is cover up what little evidence of them there is, make it look like somebody broke in and hope for the best. Between Amanda and Raffaele entering the house and the murder is only 20 minutes.

Again the odds of this being what happened are low, and the prior probability of these events occuring and a million to one against. If it wasn't an incredibly unlikely event kids would be getting murdered all over the place.

That's a start.

I've improved the odds a bit by removing the superfluous parts that aren't supported by any evidence.

 

[christianahannah]

That is how I understood it as well, from what has been discussed before and what has been stated at PMF. However, I have not seen a cite for it and the cite LJ provided says the opposite. My point was that it does not matter in this case as there was nothing for the prosecutor to appeal at the appeal level and the cite he provided does not discuss the supreme court level procedure, which may be a different thing.

There is no need to tell me to get it unless you provide me a link contradicting the one LJ posted. You must have got it (a link) at some point to be so certain of it. In the meantime my opinion on this is that it makes no difference in this case but if you want to, go ahead and prove your point. At this time I consider it both not relevant and not proven.

I don't have a link to the specific cite you ask, but a link to the Codice di Procedura Penale (among other links provided at PMF), which is interesting to poke around in.

It reads okay with Google Translate, however, there is the possibility that some of the meaning can be lost, literally, in translation.

http://www.leggeonline.info/procedurapenale/

http://www.leggeonline.info/

 

[shuttlt]

Let me state this is a different way. Five pieces of evidence are not equal to five other pieces of evidence.

Yes.

Five solid evidences of one persons' DNA in various places in a room is more significant than five pieces of evidence that are necessary to prove ONE piece of evidence.

Yes.

Several pieces of evidence are necessary to prove that the random knife picked from RS's house was the murder weapon.

1. It wasn't randomly picked.
2. What do you mean THE murder weapon? All that is needed is that the knife be proven to have been connected with the murder. It doesn't need to be associated with any particular wound.

To prove that the knife was the murder weapon you have to prove that:

1) The knife was at the scene of the crime when the murder took place.
2) The knife inflicted the wounds.
3) The suspect used the knife to inflict the wounds.
4) The knife had the victim's DNA on it.
5) The knife had the victim's blood on it.
6) The forensics lab was very, very clean and very very good.
7) None of the police were motivated to please someone that could effect their raises or promotions.

Your quotes are jumbled. If you have prove that the knife was at the scene of the crime when the murder took place you are already done, since the knife was discovered in Raffaele's draw.
If you have proved that the knife inflicted the wounds you are already done, since the knife was discovered in Raffaele's draw.
If you have proved that the suspect used the knife to inflict the wounds, then you are already done.
If you have proved any of the first three, you don't need to prove the victims DNA is on it as an additional requirement.
If you have proved any of the first three, you don't need to prove the victims blood is on it as an additional requirement.
If you have proved any of the first three, you don't need to prove that the lab was clean.
If you have proved any of the first three, you don't need to prove that the police had a motivation to lie.

Consequently, you have to have at least five pieces of evidence to establish this one piece of evidence. Furthermore, the established piece of evidence is only as strong as the weakest evidence in the chain.

No, since you haven't picked independent points. Also, you've missed from your list for Guede that the police might have been motivated to plant his prints. Also, have the prosecution proved that the lab didn't confuse the prints from the murder scene with those from one of the other 1st floor breakins that we think Rudy is responsible for?

 

[shuttlt]

Incidentally, Dan O. A corrected version of the post would be:

Meredith let's Rudy in. Things are fine at first, but very quickly go down hill. Amanda and Raffaele turn up (for one of a hundred reasons). Meredith wants to call the police an get Rudy arrested for sexual assault. Amanda and Raffaele try to calm things down, maybe they think she's over reacting. Meredith is hysterical and has to be restrained to prevent her calling the cops and is now accusing Amanda and Raffaele who are now convinced that she is over reacting. Rudy restrains Meredith while Amanda and Raffaele discuss what the heck they're going to do. Meredith breaks free, runs for the phone in her room and the whole thing ends with Rudy and a knife in Merediths room. After that, Rudy leaves, Amanda and Raffaele decide that the best thing to do is cover up what little evidence of them there is, make it look like somebody broke in and hope for the best. Between Amanda and Raffaele entering the house and the murder is only 20 minutes.

That is the version, as best as I can make out that is supported by evidence. THERE IS NO "STORY OF THE MURDER" THAT IS WELL SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE. It can't be done. There is not enough evidence. We will never know what happened until the guilty confess.

What you did was to cross out everything involving Amanda and Raffaele being involved in the murder, not everything that is unsupported by facts.

 

[Solange305]

Kevin, you have cited cases where police are corrupt. The problem is you haven't cited a case where the prosecutor, police, DNA analyst, AND judges are corrupt . Many of you allege Massei ignored evidence purposely. You allege Mignini is nuts . So you expect me to believe that all these people involved in this case are that misled that they would do this? It has gone much farther than just corrupt police. If you think that your position on that is entirely reasonable and something is wrong with ME for being skeptical, I can't imagine what you are thinking.

As far as believing you are lying, I don't know what is going on, but I do know that I would rather believe the experts testifying rather than an anonymous person on the Internet. When the appeals begin, if the experts back up your claims, maybe I will change my mind. But right now I reserve the right to put my faith in the courts and see the outcome.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

corruption and competence

Kevin, you have cited cases where police are corrupt. The problem is you haven't cited a case where the prosecutor, police, DNA analyst, AND judges are corrupt . Many of you allege Massei ignored evidence purposely. You allege Mignini is nuts.

Solange305,

You are not mentioning the Duke lacrosse case. The prosecutor (Nifong), DNA analyst (Meehan), and at least one cop (Gottlieb) were corrupt or at least unethical (Meehan). A couple of the early court rulings were heavily tilted toward the prosecution. And the defendants were wealthy (to answer a point you raised previously). See the book Until Proven Innocent for the whole story. I think that Durham, NC would make a good sister city for Perugia.

I think Massei is biased and not very logical. I think Stefanoni is not an objective or talented forensic scientist. That is not the same as being corrupt, although I do not rule out corruption, either. I am not sure why you have chosen to believe the prosecution's expert witnesses in preference to the defense's expert witnesses.

 

[Solange305]

For you, there exists a dual standard whereby you assert (NOT demonstrate) that one set of defendants' wardrobes is knowable in its entirety while asserting the opposite for the third defendant. This is a textbook example of special pleading.

*LondonJohn goes even further, theorizing that RG also wore a heavy overcoat of some sort, as well as gloves.

Absolutely. I have noticed the "special pleading" as well, which is another reason I have trouble believing the innocence scenario. If they want to be taken seriously, they need to stop that.

 

[Justinian2]

Yes.

You said:

1.It [the knife] wasn't randomly picked.​

My reply:
From page 264 of the Massei Report:

The knife was taken by Inspector Finzi, who testified that he had clean,
new gloves and that, having opened the drawer where the tableware was kept, the
first thing he saw was a large knife that was extremely clean. There were other
knives in the drawer, but he took [only] this one, which became Exhibit 36. This
knife was the first object he touched and it was located on top of all the tableware​

You said:

2. What do you mean THE murder weapon? All that is needed is that the knife be proven to have been connected with the murder. It doesn't need to be associated with any particular wound.​

My reply:
How is the knife proven to be connected to the murder if not by blood, DNA and the wounds?

You said:

To prove that the knife was the murder weapon you have to prove that:


Originally Posted by Justinian2
1) The knife was at the scene of the crime when the murder took place.
2) The knife inflicted the wounds.
3) The suspect used the knife to inflict the wounds.
4) The knife had the victim's DNA on it.
5) The knife had the victim's blood on it.
6) The forensics lab was very, very clean and very very good.
7) None of the police were motivated to please someone that could effect their raises or promotions.

Your quotes are jumbled. If you have prove that the knife was at the scene of the crime when the murder took place you are already done, since the knife was discovered in Raffaele's draw.
If you have proved that the knife inflicted the wounds you are already done, since the knife was discovered in Raffaele's draw.
If you have proved that the suspect used the knife to inflict the wounds, then you are already done.
If you have proved any of the first three, you don't need to prove the victims DNA is on it as an additional requirement.
If you have proved any of the first three, you don't need to prove the victims blood is on it as an additional requirement.
If you have proved any of the first three, you don't need to prove that the lab was clean.
If you have proved any of the first three, you don't need to prove that the police had a motivation to lie.​

My reply:
One of the first three on that list should be required. Perhaps not all three if one is super solid – but none are. One of either number four or five on that list must be required. The validity of the evidence requires that one or both of #4 or #5 be really solid. If #4 and #5 are super solid, then #6 isn’t required. #7 is an absolute must. #7 must be established.

You said:

Originally Posted by Justinian2
Consequently, you have to have at least five pieces of evidence to establish this one piece of evidence. Furthermore, the established piece of evidence is only as strong as the weakest evidence in the chain.

No, since you haven't picked independent points. Also, you've missed from your list for Guede that the police might have been motivated to plant his prints. Also, have the prosecution proved that the lab didn't confuse the prints from the murder scene with those from one of the other 1st floor breakins that we think Rudy is responsible for?​

My reply:
The Guede evidence has chains and weak links too. It’s just that there is redundant solid evidence to establish the case against Guede.

 

[christianahannah]

Solange305,

You are not mentioning the Duke lacrosse case. The prosecutor (Nifong), DNA analyst (Meehan), and at least one cop (Gottlieb) were corrupt or at least unethical (Meehan). A couple of the early court rulings were heavily tilted toward the prosecution. And the defendants were wealthy (to answer a point you raised previously). See the book Until Proven Innocent for the whole story. I think that Durham, NC would make a good sister city for Perugia.

I think Massei is biased and not very logical. I think Stefanoni is not an objective or talented forensic scientist. That is not the same as being corrupt, although I do not rule out corruption, either. I am not sure why you have chosen to believe the prosecution's expert witnesses in preference to the defense's expert witnesses.

Wasn't the DNA analyst in the lacrosse case from a private lab rather than a state lab?

What are your reasons for thinking that Stefanoni is not objective or talented as a forensic scientist?

 

[Chris C]

I think Massei is biased and not very logical. I think Stefanoni is not an objective or talented forensic scientist. That is not the same as being corrupt, although I do not rule out corruption, either. I am not sure why you have chosen to believe the prosecution's expert witnesses in preference to the defense's expert witnesses.

Actually thats an easy answer. The prosecution's witnesses confirms what they want to believe, where as the defense's witness confirms the evidence.

 

[platonov]

That depends. I'd say she doesn't positively assert his innocence, in the sense that she would be lying if he turned out to be involved. She can't really do that without providing him with an alibi, or admitting that she was present during the crime. Since she doesn't do either, she is not positively asserting his innocence.

What she does do is unequivocally cease to assert that he is involved and make it clear that she does not believe he is involved. One problem with this is that she does it in a perfectly straight forward way, in contrast with her statements to the authorities.

I fail to see what all this argument about her saying on not saying that Patrick is innocent is about. There seems to be some nonsense fear that it's a trap and that if it's admitted that she told her mother he didn't do it, somebody will jump up and shout "AH! But how could she know, unless she was there". This is such nonsense it's not worth considering.
As far as I'm concerned she makes a strong assertion (she's lying if it's false) to her mother that she has no reason to believe Patrick is the killer and a weak assertion that he isn't the killer (she's not lying if it's false).

Is this acceptable, Mary?

Its not quite that simple shuttlt - you seem to be forgetting that the court had the transcripts and thus are not restricted to AK's 'minimizing' * in her responses.

You cant simply say its nonsense - Whether the court took that logic into account or not and how much weight, if any, they gave it on this particular 'point' is an open question. They may not have needed to ?

But that 'Foaker logic', if we can call it that for a moment, is the reason such efforts are made to interpret or handwave away the Nov 10 transcript/testimony - I actually did apply it in reverse it when London John used it to show he was now a 'guilter'

But the bigger issue, and it as to be seen in the context of the rest of the testimony & the other statements, interrogations, judicial appearances etc is how the name of PL came up & why - Mignini seemed to show that AK was the originator - and the discrepancies and contradictions in the ever changing stories.

Its far from a minor point ; its a murder trial not a game of semantics, the court are not restricted to putting the best possible light on AK's responses - they have [as I keep saying] all the transcripts.
When an 'explanatory' response is not received the court moves on - but its not as if the source material which was the basis for the question just magically disappears.

Its not worth arguing further over on this limited basis; but its worth reading thru the testimony, there is some revealing stuff in there which puts it in context.

* As she has, and is entitled, to do in a murder trial.

 

[Kaosium]

Technically it is probably true, but it is mendacious to use it in the way that it's used. She got to the police station at 10:15pm having just had dinner. Raffaele went off to be interrogated. She hung out in the waiting room with access to a food, water and toilets. She did her homework, her legs got stiff, she did some cartwheels, she answered some questions from the police in the waiting room. She then went off to the interrogation room once the Raffaele had dropped her in it in his interrogation.

This sounds plausible, I'm just curious where it comes from. Was this information released at some point by the Perugian police? I've had zero luck finding out what the official account was. There are indications however that they were both being interrogated at the same time, or that at least Raffele thought so.

How long must that have taken? Half an hour seems very short to me, but some people I've argued with place her going into the interrogation room at 10:45pm. I'd have thought quite a bit later, but OK. That's a three hour interrogation. I'm sorry, but building an argument based on not being able to get to the coffee machine for at the absolute outside three hours is nonsense.

Actually the bathroom was the only real deprivation that concerned me. Denying her food and coffee for a few hours, as you note, is hardly going to cause much physical strain. What it does do however is create menace and produce agitation in the subject. What happens in a real interrogation is not physical in nature, but mental.

Unless of course you're Jack Bauer, but that doesn't actually work all that well in practice.

Was it even really three hours? Not that it impacts the timing, but she herself says that it didn't start to get intense until the early hours of the morning. A 10:45pm start time is optimistic. Once she had said what she said there was presumably some time taken finishing up... typing up her statement, reading her statement, signing her statement.... Myself, I think two hours withjout food, water and toilets is a better guess.

The next morning she was taken to have breakfast when the canteen opened. So, she didn't miss any meals.
Is it really unusual for an interrogation to last a couple of hours and not have sandwiches laid on?

Didn't they just get done eating? I can't recall for sure, but I believe it's the custom in Italy to eat late.

I'll watch one of his interviews on YouTube and give him another chance.

Which should quickly dispel any thought in your mind he's just a PR guy!

I'm sure it was tough, but all the talk about being denied food and water is a mendatious lie being used to sex up the argument. As to the waiting for he thing... She did her homework until her legs got tired, then there is also the cartwheels and a bit of light questioning in the waiting room. Certainly it is true that at the trial it came out that there was an intention to bring both of them in and question them together, equally it is true that Amanda wasnsn't aware they she was supposed to come and that they didn't in fact take her to be questioned at the same time as Raffaele.

This is an interesting one. There's contradictory information available as far as I've seen. I did indeed hear that Amanda just tagged along, but also that Giobbi testified to 'mathematical' certainty or somesuch that he said they both were to come. Some have speculated that Raffaele didn't tell her because he knew she was coming anyway, or that the cops knew it.

At any rate, one definite fact is the twelve police officers, being as that is going through the courts right now, though it's down to eight now. I think that must square with what they had in mind that night. That comes off as part of a plan, unless they really keep an extra twelve interrogators on overnight all the time in Perugia Italy. Also the fact she was told by the judge no allowance would be made for her staying as they intentionally went after he before her mother could get there should be taken into account.

I agree with Steve Moore. 30 people conducting an interrogation beggers belief. None the less I was assurred by Bruce that he had documentary proof. At best it's a reminder about taking people's word for what evidence they won't show you demonstrates.

I read some of his posts on this thread, though I guess he stopped posting here before I started. I don't know what he might have meant outside something about thirty signatures on something else. That could be everyone at the station, but is that something that would happen in Italy? Different practices and all, but I can't see the reason for it.

That kind of evidence wouldn't normally be accepted. If she was a witness it can't normally be used against her, if she was a suspect then the police shouldn't have been interrogating her and it couldn't be used anyway. Why would they expect it to be allowed? If one is inclined to be suspicious of their motives, then presumably the point of getting Mignini in would be to try and get her to repeat some of it in a way that had some hope of being admissable. If only they had known that all they needed was to leave writing materials in her cell, they need not have bothered waking him.

I suspect the idea was to break her and then use the tape of the confession to back up the written statement, but this is where it gets interesting. If you look at their behavior going after Patrick (note: source is the Daily Mail) and then transferring them to the other station for which there is multiple sources including video evidence, they were acting very exuberant. That suggests to me they believed they had the right people. However, perhaps it was eventually realized that the tape didn't match what was on the paper she signed, making it worthless.

What everything did they tape? Did they tape the interview/interrogation with Raffaele? Did they tape their previous interviews? Did they tape the interviews with the Fillomina? I know they taped the wire taps, but that is somewhat different.

Rose posted recently that just about everything was taped outside a couple interviews, including Filomena's. Frankly this seems to me like common sense practice for a police department. You'd think they'd want to study the tapes of those they suspected, especially if much emphasis is placed on body language to determine probity which is not an uncommon practice many places, and may be even more so in Italy going by Giobbi's curious statement to CBS.

What is the connection between the signing and the taping?

Because the moment the lawyer gets there he's gonna wanna do his best to contest any confession he finds his client signed! That would be a little tougher with video evidence.

Was it? In any case, there was an interpreter.

Was it actually an interpreter or was it just one of the cops spoke English? I saw a number of posts on this but never did see anything definitive for the actual status of the woman who was there during questioning and is now part of the Calunnia suit.

They wrote it out, went over it with her, she agreed to it, she signed it, they signed it. It's not a transcript of the interrogation that she signed. In any case, if it was, and it was based on a recording, they would be doing well to get it typed up, agreed and signed in the time it took. That again would cut down the time of the interrogation to, what, an hour? Less?

Pardon? You think she signed the statement at 1:45? I thought that didn't happen until morning? I got the impression at 1:45 they stopped and 'upgraded' her status or something, then the statement was signed.

Oh, it's not great at all that it wasn't taped - by the way do we actually have something asserted in court, or by one of the lawyers that it wasn't, I can't remember. Perhaps it is suspicious. It depends on normal practice in Perugia. I've certainly not seen any evidence that the other interviews in this case were taped. Perhaps they were and I missed it.

I've see it claimed that Mignini admitted that the others were taped and that the official story is that with the important one they 'forgot.' I also read elsewhere that it was 'erased' but that might have been speculation.

Sure, but this is what Amanda says. If we start assuming the her word is trustworthy, or not trustworthy, then we are beginning to let our conclusions about guilt or innocence seep into our reasoning about the case.

I think it has to be taken into account though, especially when we know some of it squares with what Raffaele did and said and what was claimed by the police. We know both of them thought the other betrayed them and was hurt and wondered why.

Bad stuff get's telivised in the US as well (no idea where you're from). It's been mentioned before about TV shows laughing about footage of police interviews and prison visits. The footage of the body that Raffaele's family got in trouble for leaking is also a low point.

I didn't mean it like that.
I think there's a show called "The Nancy Grace" show that uses something called 'Sunshine Laws' in Florida to put together what sounds like a repellent show to me, but I've never watched it and have not once ran into someone who knew who Nancy Grace was that didn't despise her.

However can you imagine fifteen hours of something like that on TV? That's what I thought pretty odd.

I doubt it, but in any case, this wouldn't be perculiar to Italy.

You'd have to strap me down!

 

[Kaosium]

If it is permissible for the prosecution to appeal the fast track sentence maybe it's just that Rudy hadn't pissed off the prosecutor 1% as much as the other two did. If you ran a public campaign against a US prosecutor in the way that has been done in this case I would have thought there would be similar consequences. Perhaps it's not fair, but I don't think it would be wildly shocking.

However is it really the practice in Italy that someone convicted with so much evidence at a sexual assault/murder scene, including on the victim's body, can be out of jail in about ten years with reductions?

 

[shuttlt]

The knife was taken by Inspector Finzi, who testified that he had clean,
new gloves and that, having opened the drawer where the tableware was kept, the
first thing he saw was a large knife that was extremely clean. There were other
knives in the drawer, but he took [only] this one, which became Exhibit 36. This
knife was the first object he touched and it was located on top of all the tableware​

This was discussed ad nausium months ago. For ages people made the argument you are making. I would reply, yes, but perhaps there were reasons why that knife was chosen. Why assume that the police acted inexplicably? Perhaps, I joked, all the other knives were butter knives. Eventually Charlie Wilkes emailed me a photo of the draw. It contained the kitchen knife we are discussing and a bunch of ordinary table knives.

2. What do you mean THE murder weapon? All that is needed is that the knife be proven to have been connected with the murder. It doesn't need to be associated with any particular wound.​

My reply:
How is the knife proven to be connected to the murder if not by blood, DNA and the wounds?

It doesn't have to be connected by all three. In any case, why does there have to be only one knife? That's why I capitalized "THE".

As for the list of required evidence.. how about:

1. There is physical evidence on the knife linking it to the crime
2. That the handling of the knife isn't such that any physical evidence found on the knife is too unreliable to be considered.

I don't understand why we are arguing about Guede. The evidence against him is fine and I'm not seeking to diminish it. That there may be less evidence against the other two, or that it may be more complicated and interconnected evidence is neither here nor there.