Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Mary_H]

Originally Posted by Mary_H:

Amanda's testimony seems to show that the only time she requested making a statement was for the memoriale she wrote the evening of the 6th -- after she had been arrested at midday on the 6th. The 1:45 a.m. and 5:45 a.m. statements were made before that. Can you provide a citation showing that Amanda asked to make a statement at 5:45 a.m.?

Amanda said so...it MUST be true

So then, no, you can't provide a citation showing that Amanda asked to make a statement at 5:45 a.m.

 

[Mary_H]

No Mary, it is not expected, it is just done. It doesn't imply guilt, or fault. If I named someone who I did not know was there, even if my naming them was forced, it does not hurt me to apologize for the pain inflicted on that person.

If anyone (not necessarily you) comments that Amanda "finally" apologized or extended sympathy, that is a sign they were expecting or at least wishing that Amanda had done so earlier.

I think it is right that Amanda apologized yesterday to Patrick and sympathized with the Kerchers about Meredith's death. It shows she did care about those things and humanizes her.

Amanda already has expressed many times in writing, speech and court testimony that she was sorry both about Patrick having been suspected and imprisoned and about Meredith's tragic death.

No Mary, I don't think that. I think Amanda made a wise decision in speaking yesterday and addressing the criticisms which have been directed towards her.

I am not going to argue that Amanda did not do the right thing. As I implied, though, I think it is unfortunate that she has to assume what may be a humiliating position for her. It is a position that easily can be construed by some people as a sign that Amanda is accepting responsibility for circumstances that were not her fault.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Raffaele version #5) To the Italian High Court: It is wrong to use the knife found at my flat as evidence against me as that would erroneously assume Amanda and I were together on the night of the murder

Wrong again. Raffaele didn't give any such "version" to the High Court. His lawyers pointed out that even if the knife is a clue against Amanda it is used against him without justification.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Katody Mattrass,

I did a quick PubMed search on his name and got over a hundred articles. He seems to have worked a good deal in the area of mitochondrial DNA forensics, which has some similarities with LCN DNA forensics.

Googling his name suggests he was FBI's top DNA scientist and head of the lab.

 

[Mary_H]

Being asked in open court to back up you claims about an important part of the case is not normally described as 'entrapment'
- unless you have a different definition of the word.

Have you any evidence on what the defence advised her on this - I don't remember them bringing a case on AK's behalf for this 'assault' on the night of the 5/6th.
Did the defence even ask her directly about it while she was on the stand ?
They seemed to want to go with confusion etc as opposed to 'waterboarding' or 'torture' or avoid the whole issue.

Yes, Amanda was asked in court about the cuffs to the back of the head.

I am not sure it has ever been settled whether two cuffs to the back of the head is illegal during interrogations in Italy. Maybe that's why her attorneys didn't file any charges about it.

 

[quadraginta]

I believe you said "not a cop". You know that if they work for the cops there is a common employer, right? Is all they do all day is sit around waiting for some English speaking person to get arrested so they can actually do something?

This is a very good point, what use would the police station have for a genuine interpreter in Perugia the rest of the time? Did she come from Rome maybe?

Perugia isn't exactly a village, you know. It has over 160,000 residents in the city alone (which, if it were in the U.S., would put it in the top 150 largest incorporated municipalities in the country), and is the capital of a province with over 600,000. Not only is tourism a major part of the economy, they host a university specifically for foreigners called, somewhat prosaically , the "University for Foreigners" with more than 8,000 students (with Amanda Knox among it's 'notable' matriculants), not to mention the Umbra Institute, which is specifically for students from North America.

I can see nothing even the least bit surprising about the idea that they would insure rapid local access to the services of a qualified interpreter, and would be rather surprised if they did not make a point of having someone on their staff who could serve in that capacity when required. Probably more than one. The police dept. of a comparable city in the U.S. would number around a couple of hundred employees, at least. Arranging for some foreign language skills in a staff that size isn't particularly difficult. I have to think it would be even easier in a European country.

 

[Mary_H]

Mary, I know you sympathize alot with Amanda, I understand that. I cant tell by your comments, and I don't have a problem with it. But I don't understand how anyone can display "spontaneous joy" as you call it, after your so called friend is murdered and you are being accused of it. Its not a game. Even a 20 year old should understand that. Like I said, the seriousness of the murder and accusation that we saw from Amanda yesterday should have come 3 years ago. Someone else said, she could have just been an uncaring selfish young woman who didn't really care much for Meredith and was enjoying the attention, it is not proof of murder. But if that was the case, she didn't do herself any favors, that's for sure.

When I referred to Amanda's spontaneous joy, I wasn't thinking in terms of specific acts of behavior; I meant her general, youthful joie de vivre. You say even a 20-year-old should understand that being accused of a murder is not a game, but it was obvious from the beginning that Amanda simply could not believe she actually was being prosecuted for the crime. It was completely outside of her purview to know how to participate in and cooperate with something as absurd as what has happened to her since 2007.

For a long time, Amanda seemed to be holding out hope that somebody would suddenly say, "Just kidding! You've been punk'd!" Eventually, and sadly, she had to lose that hope. To me, it is outrageous that some people believe that when a sick, immature person decides to impose a huge impact on a victim's life and permanently change the course of it, that the victim should buckle down, be serious about it and do what she "should."

 

[Mary_H]

They didn't rule it inadmissible because she had been 'denied her rights', they ruled it inadmissible because because only suspect verbally made statements are only admissible as evidence against them if they are made in the presence of a lawyer.

Suspects do not have the 'legal right' to a lawyer and make a voluntary statement and waive their right to a lawyer. This is under article 374 - Law of Criminal Proceedings:

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=17394#p17394

Okay, they didn't rule it inadmissible because she had been denied her right to counsel. They rule it inadmissible because she didn't have counsel. Does that help?

I wouldn't quote Mignini if I were you. He is referring to how he accepted the 5:45 a.m. statement -- which was thrown out, because it was made without counsel. He claims no articles were violated, but the Supreme Court disagreed with him.

 

[quadraginta]

If skin cells regularly got caught on knives despite washing, wouldn't there be an awful lot of food poisoning?

Um ... no. The human body is not quite that vulnerable. Otherwise we would have gone extinct long ago. After all, the whole idea of sanitation as a germ prevention measure is a relatively modern one. Pasteur and Lister did their work in the mid-1800s. Koch first proved the germ transmission of disease in 1890.

Wouldn't there be adverts on TV advising you to boil your knives or something?

"... or something?"





They have.

Maybe you haven't been paying attention. The various cleaning product manufacturers have waged a terror campaign about hygiene for more than a generation. For at least a decade or so they've been trying to convince people that they would all die horribly if they didn't get the latest "antibacterial" dish and hand soaps. You can't walk around a supermarket without bumping into displays for disinfectant wipes at every aisle corner.

There's even been something of a backlash in the scientific community, with more than a few suggesting (and, to a large degree, proving) that we've gone too far, and are defeating our bodies' own mechanisms for developing and maintaining resistance. Check out the "hygiene hypothesis^WP" for some interesting discussions.

In fact, the very question you began you post with (if it was meant sincerely) demonstrates that you yourself have fallen victim to that sort of advertising, apparently all unawares.

Subtle, isn't it?

 

[quadraginta]

I could be mistaken, but the late hour was chosen partly because of Sollecito's schedule, and also because they were eating dinner and Sollecito asked for time to finish. Also, I am just going by memory here, so I may be wrong, but I think they called them in after realizing they had gone out to eat instead of going to Meredith's memorial (meaning, they meant to call them in earlier, but wanted to give them time to go to the memorial, then when they realized they hadnt gone anyway, they said screw it, call them in now). I guess my point is it might not have been planned as a strategy to call them in late, but I may be wrong, Im sure someone will promptly correct me if i am

Solange305,

Even if I were to accept this account as true, it would still mean for a very late interrogation, after the memorial versus after a late dinner. Either way it sounds like the police wanted to do a late night interrogation. If one accepts Malkmus' inference that the police expected to change the status of someone from witness to suspect that day (I reposted this link today), it starts to look, well, fishy.

If the police had not shown any regard for Sollecito's schedule or any for Meredith's memorial how late would it have been when they went to be interviewed?

If you want it to be "fishy", then I suppose it could be "fishy". Otherwise it could have just been accommodating and even respectful to Meredith's memorial.

A respect which didn't seem to be shared by Knox and Sollecito, who placed more importance on a pizza snack.

It would be equally reasonable to conclude that the fact the cops hadn't dragged them in in spite of all protestations suggests they didn't have any particular expectations of a change in status. What we actually know (as opposed to surmise, assume, insinuate, and guess) about the circumstances of that status change fits much more closely with the idea that it was as much of a surprise to the police as it was to anyone else.

 

[LondonJohn]

If the police had not shown any regard for Sollecito's schedule or any for Meredith's memorial how late would it have been when they went to be interviewed?

If you want it to be "fishy", then I suppose it could be "fishy". Otherwise it could have just been accommodating and even respectful to Meredith's memorial.

A respect which didn't seem to be shared by Knox and Sollecito, who placed more importance on a pizza snack.

It would be equally reasonable to conclude that the fact the cops hadn't dragged them in in spite of all protestations suggests they didn't have any particular expectations of a change in status. What we actually know (as opposed to surmise, assume, insinuate, and guess) about the circumstances of that status change fits much more closely with the idea that it was as much of a surprise to the police as it was to anyone else.

1) Did Filomena or Laura go to the vigil for Meredith on the evening of 5th November?

2) If the police/prosecutor had no expectations of a "change in the status" of Knox (and Sollecito) that night (5th/6th), how is it possible to explain Perugia Police Chief De Felice's remark at the press conference on the morning of the 6th: "....she (Knox) buckled and made an admission of facts we knew were correct" (my emphasis)?

3) If the police/prosecutor had no expectations of a "change in the status" of Knox (and Sollecito) that night (5th/6th), how is it possible to explain the remark by Judge Matteini in an arraignment hearing: "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 (of absconding to the US)" (my emphasis)?

 

[quadraginta]

Regardless of the ridiculous things the police may or may not have done, we have no documentation that they asked Amanda and Raffaele how they spent the evening of November 1st, until they asked them about it during the interrogations the night of the 5th. We can't surmise and then use our conclusion as forensic evidence.

It's certainly done often enough in these threads. Why is this time any different?

Tell us honestly, Mary. Just what sorts of questions do you think it is routine for the police to ask the housemates of a murder victim when they are found in the house with that victim?

Do you really, truly believe that they would wait days ... or even hours before inquiring what those people were doing and where they were doing it the night before?

I said I wouldn't remember buying, cooking and eating fish four nights ago. I would remember gutting a fish, but we have no evidence Raffaele and Amanda gutted a fish.

I've sort of lost track. Where did the cleaning a fish story originate?

 

[Katody Matrass]

How long and stretchy do you imagine his legs and arms are? You can't reach the grating from the porch.

You are mistaken. The distance from the window sill to the porch corner is 1,3 m. The grating is even closer, around 1,2 m. Remember that famous Leonardo's drawing of a man with outstretched arms inside a square and a circle? Rudy's arms span was easily above 1,7 m. He could easily grab the sill with one hand while holding the planter edge with the other. That way he could comfortably lower himself onto the grating, without doing any hops or splits - three points of support all the time .
Notice excellent footholds under the planter. Planter edge constitutes a great handhold. Rocks below are perfectly accessible and it's one step from them to the grating. (Image courtesy of PMF )
Notice how short the distances are and how close everything is when you have a human as reference.

He could also very well step down to the rocks below the porch and from there lean against the wall and make even easier step onto the grating.
I understand it could be hard to imagine for someone who spends his days in front of a computer screen, but it's perfectly doable for a fit young basketball player.

 

[LondonJohn]

They are police interpreters, they are not police. You know there's a difference right? And yes, one of them is one of the plaintiffs in the calunnia charge.

Try PMF.

Like Fulcanelli, I don't believe that the interpreters were actually police officers, but that instead they were local civilians who were employed freelance by the police as required. The Met Police in London have similar arrangements with interpreters for all languages.

But if that's the case, why does it appear that Anna Donnino (the interpreter who was present during Knox's interrogation of the 5th/6th) was actually playing an active role in the proceedings? It appears that it was Ms Donnino who suggested to Knox that she had become so traumatised by the murder that she'd repressed her memories of it. She apparently used an example of when she (Donnino) broke her leg to illustrate the concept of repressed memory:

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/403568_knox14.html

To me, this seems like the interpreter was overstepping the boundary by quite a massive margin. Her job was no more and no less than to translate what Knox said into Italian, and what the police officers said into English. It would be interesting to look into the legality of an interpreter injecting her own views and suggestions into a police interview......

 

[Matthew Best]

Looks like there have been a few suspensions and at least one ban. Let's play nice.

 

[Mary_H]

It's certainly done often enough in these threads. Why is this time any different?

Tell us honestly, Mary. Just what sorts of questions do you think it is routine for the police to ask the housemates of a murder victim when they are found in the house with that victim?

I don't know what is routine. Here is how Amanda described the questions they asked her:

the police told everyone to get out and not long afterward the carabinieri arrived and then soon afterward, more police investigators. they took all of our informaton and asked us the same questions over and over. at the time i had only what i was wearing and my badg, which thankfully had my passport in it and my wallet. no jacket though, and i was freezing. after sticking around at the housr for a bit, the police told us to go to the station to give testimony, which i did. i was in a room for six hours straight after that without seeing anyone else, answering questions in italian for the first hour
and then they brought in an interpreter and he helped my out with the details that i didnt know the words for. they asked me of course about the the morning, the last time i saw her, and because i was the closest to her, questions about her habits and her relationships.

they told me to be back in at 11am. i went home to raffael's place and ate something substantial, and passed out.
in the morning raffael drove me bck to the police station but had to leave me when they said they wantrd to take me back to the house for quesioning. before i go on, id like to ssay that i was strictly told not to speak about this, but im speaking with you people who are not involved and who cant do anything bad except talk to journalists, which i hope you wont do. i have to get this off my chest because its pressing down on me and it helps to know that someone besides me knows something, and that im not the one who knows the most out of everyone. at the house they asked me very personal questions about meredith's life and also about the personalities of our neighbors. how well did i know them? pretty well, we are friends. was meredith sexually active? yeah, she borrowed a few of my condoms. does she like anal? wtf? i dont know. does she use vaseline? for her lips? what kind of person is stefano? nice guy, has a really pretty girlfriend. hmmm...very
interesting....weìd like to how you something, and tell us if this is out of normal.

tehy took me into the nieghbors house. the had breaken the door open to get in, but they told me to ingonore that. the rooms were all open. giacomo and marco-n's room was spotless which made since becaus the guys had thoroughly cleaned the whole house before they left on vacation. stefano's room however, well, his bed was strpped of linens, which was odd, and the comfoter he used was shoved up at the top of his bed, with blood on it. i obviously told then that the blood was definatley out of normal and also that he usually has his bed made. they took note of it and ussred me out. when i left the house to go back to the police station they told me to put my jacket over my head and duck down below the window so the reporters wouldnt try to talk to me. at the station i just had to repeat the answers that i had givne
at the house do they could type them up and after a good 5 and a half hour day with the police again raffael picked me up and took me out for some well-deserved pizza.

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/02/from-amanda-knox.html

Do you really, truly believe that they would wait days ... or even hours before inquiring what those people were doing and where they were doing it the night before?

As I understand it, the police had the initial impression of the crime as a single-man-on-single-woman burglary-rape-murder, and that is what they started out investigating. From the records we have, it looks like Giobbi told Mignini he thought Amanda was misbehaving, and Mignini ran with it.

I've sort of lost track. Where did the cleaning a fish story originate?

I do not know.

 

[RoseMontague]

Like Fulcanelli, I don't believe that the interpreters were actually police officers, but that instead they were local civilians who were employed freelance by the police as required. The Met Police in London have similar arrangements with interpreters for all languages.

But if that's the case, why does it appear that Anna Donnino (the interpreter who was present during Knox's interrogation of the 5th/6th) was actually playing an active role in the proceedings? It appears that it was Ms Donnino who suggested to Knox that she had become so traumatised by the murder that she'd repressed her memories of it. She apparently used an example of when she (Donnino) broke her leg to illustrate the concept of repressed memory:

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/403568_knox14.html

To me, this seems like the interpreter was overstepping the boundary by quite a massive margin. Her job was no more and no less than to translate what Knox said into Italian, and what the police officers said into English. It would be interesting to look into the legality of an interpreter injecting her own views and suggestions into a police interview......

It says police officers here:

These police officers are suing Amanda Knox for slander. Four dropped out. Their lawyer is Francesco Marcesca, a Florentine who also represents the victim's family.

1. Marco Chiacchiera, vice director, flying squad (in Questura control room).
2. Edgardo Giobbi, head of SCO, Rome (Questura control room).
3. Monica Napoleoni, homicide chief, Flying Squad (went back and forth between Amanda and Raffaele Sollecito's interrogation rooms and Questura control room).
4. Lorena Zugarini, Flying Squad. (Amanda's room).
5. Rita Ficarra, Flying Squad (Amanda's room).
6. Fabio D'Astolto, Flying Squad interpreter (saw Knox on Nov. 2).
7. Ivano Raffo, SCO, Rome (Amanda's room).
8. Anna Donnino, Flying Squad Interpreter (Amanda's room).

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/archives/223757.asp

 

[platonov]

It says police officers here:




http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/archives/223757.asp

Yea, but check out the byline - Its Dempsey !

 

[RoseMontague]

Just curious about the quote I just posted, 2 of them are listed as being in the control room. Were they watching the video of the interrogations, perhaps? LOL.

 

[RoseMontague]

Yea, but check out the byline - Its Dempsey !

I consider Dempsey to be a fairly reliable source. However, you are welcome to post a cite from anyone else you can find that says differently or even the same if you want to be helpful.