I copied both of the statements above from PMF, although PMF says they got them from Friends of Amanda. Keep in mind both statements were originally written in Italian and only signed by Amanda.
The colpevolisti position, as recently verbalized by The Machine on PMF, is that "Knox's questioning was stopped at 1.45am when she became a suspect. She wasn't questioned again that night." Why he wants to maintain this, I don't know. If it were true, the Supreme Court would not have thrown out the two statements.
The fact that the 5:45 statement includes the phrase, "I wish to relate spontaneously," suggests to me defensiveness and overcompensation on the part of the writers of the document. Why would Amanda say, "I wish to relate spontaneously," instead of just saying, "I wish to relate?" Mignini or whoever wrote it was already trying to cover up the fact that Amanda had been roped into this second confession without the required presence of a lawyer.
The big question is what happened between 1:45 and 5:45 that made Amanda suddenly want to "spontaneously relate" a whole lot more details about something that never happened than she has been prepared to relate at 1:45. Was she idly daydreaming for four hours? Regardless, though, of whether she thought it all up or Mignini questioned her (which we know he did), he should not have accepted the statement from her.
SO -- we have the trial testimony in which at least three lawyers refer to the "5:45 interrogation;" we have the copy above of the second statement, received by Giuliano Mignini at 5:45 after Amanda had officially become a suspect but still had no lawyer; and we have the decision by the Supreme Court to disallow the two false accusation/confessions.
Does anyone still think the colpevolisti position on this is realistic?
Dos your argument consist in pointing at the word "spontaneously"?
I make a few points:
1. you say "If it were true, the Supreme Court would not have thrown out the two statements". This makes no sense. First, there is no logical relation between a ruling of the Supreme Court and the length of the interrogation. A ruling by the Supreme Court doesn't mean the reported timing reported in munutes is untrue, in fact this was not disputed. Second, "the Supreme Court thrown out the statements" is a commonly reported incorrect phrase. It is an incorrect interpretation of the ruling. The Court said said the
statements were not usable in certain purposes under certain conditions in the court debate. But did not
throw out the statements: the statements were allowed to remain included in the process file.
2. The words "spontanouously" is a formula. Minutes of spontaneous declaration always would start with this formulation. It is a compulsory technical wording, not a style chosen by the suspect.
3. What she was doing between 1:45 and 5:45 is no big question, as long as she gave us no big answer different from anything we know. We know the long waiting times at police station, we know 5:45 time is the signing aftr the closure of her conversation with Mignini, we know that there has been a call to Mignini who was at home in between, and that there has been a notification of a state of police arrest, then a warrant issued by Mignini who was instructed about the recent interrogations of Sollecito and Knox, read the papers and declared her a formal suspect, and his explaning her the warrant and his demand about whehter she wanted to make statements, so we know a few things did happen that took some time before the beginning of her statement.
4. the "trial testimony in which at least three lawyers refer to the "5:45 interrogation" means nothing, lawyers don't testify, and means nothing as long as the 5:45 is
always acknowledged to be a
spontaneous stetement by
all lawyers and judges in all documents. It is not like we can decide that different wordings during the trial can overturn the legal definition and position about this point.
5. finally, a general point about the
colpevolisti. What instead innocentisti seem they fail to grasp, is the main incriminating value against Amanda Knox - mhat makse of her a liar - comes from her subsequent hand written memoriale, and from her previous e-mail (and interogations). And in general, it is what she said
before and
after that makes her position totally inconsistent, rather than
during the 05:45 statement. In her 05:45 statement there are many elements from which we can see reasons to think the version of the police is simply the truth and tha she is just a suspect trying to make up a story to mislead investigations. But how she deals after with the facts )and what she said before) makes of her a proven liar.
