Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[capealadin]

The police arrested Patrick, right? They 'blamed' a twenty year-old girl they'd been interrogating all week, right? They told her a bunch of mistaken information and got her to 'vaguely remember' a bunch of things that 'matched' what they 'knew' but it just so happened it all turned out to be false, do you suppose that is a coincidence? She just 'happened' to make up things that were exactly what they 'thought' occurred? None of which actually did, you'll note even the prosecution eventually agreed when they made their case. Nothing from the thrown-out confession turned out to be in the trial, did it? So what did it 'match?'

The police are responsible for evaluating the information they get from interrogations. They are also responsible for who they arrest. If the girl they're putting the screws to starts babbling about 'flashes' when they start cuffing her to get to her 'repressed memories' somebody needs to say 'whoa, I think we freaked the chick out.' This didn't happen, and they don't just get to blame the girl. Especially when the girl obviously doesn't think she's 'accusing' anyone of anything. She wasn't, she was answering their questions, temporarily believing what they told her must have happened, probably trying to square it somehow in her mind.

Here's why they probably arrested Amanda Knox, their 'hard evidence.' Follow the link and read through the article and note that the police have just about everything wrong. They were wrong about Patrick Lumumba, they were wrong about Amanda Knox, and they were wrong about Raffaele Sollecito. Why do you suppose they said they 'forgot' to tape this interrogation?



"Amanda Knox, the American student who claims that she was not even present when her British roommate, Meredith Kercher, was murdered, was caught on closed-circuit television entering the house on the evening of the crime.

Police in the Italian city of Perugia said that the image was "clear cut," and flatly contradicted Knox's latest version of events, in which she reverted to her original assertion that she had spent the night of the murder with her Italian boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, and was not at the whitewashed cottage she shared with Kercher and two Italian female students."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,310637,00.html#ixzz19GoJswTR

Right. The police did arrest Patrick. BECAUSE of Amanda. But, hey, she just apologized to him, 3 years later. So, we know now as a fact, why he was arrested. That's now a fact.

Probably, and other suppositions are not facts. I suggest we wait and see what the new jury decides. There's still a lot of evidence, which at this stage has not been asked to be re-examined, by the Defense.

 

[Justinian2]

Right. The police did arrest Patrick. BECAUSE of Amanda. But, hey, she just apologized to him, 3 years later. So, we know now as a fact, why he was arrested. That's now a fact.

Probably, and other suppositions are not facts. I suggest we wait and see what the new jury decides. There's still a lot of evidence, which at this stage has not been asked to be re-examined, by the Defense.

Oh, I get it! Amanda's witchcraft made the Perugian Police make all their mistakes! After all, this is a witch trial.

 

[moodstream]

Oh no - an innocent Raffaele did shout: Merediths DNA?? IMPOSSIBLE !! She never ever came even near that knife!

bud he didn't, to the contrary, he stummers some silly remark about pricking her whilst cooking together.

But Meredith's DNA on the knife wasn’t impossible, was it? There is no dispute. He is being told so by the police - DNA of Meredith is on the knife found in his kitchen drawer. The police are not lying. The information is everywhere, all over the news. Raffaele has to figure out how that can be so.

Are you saying that Raffaele, the murderer of Meredith, is trying to deceive with his story about pricking Meredith while cooking *because* he did not accuse the Perugian police of corruption, or blame Amanda?

That misunderstands Raffaele’s position. He knows he did not kill Meredith and he knows at this point neither did Amanda. He believes the Perugian police are doing their job honestly.

Thus, he has an inexplicable quandary to resolve. How could the DNA get on the knife, given that neither he nor Amanda committed the crime?

Today, it is easy to think a better choice would be to say ‘I don’t know’. But (assume for just a moment he is innocent), as Raffaele reflects on what event could cause Meredith's DNA to get on the knife, for, from his perspective surely this did happen, can you not accept that he conflates a true memory of Meredith in the kitchen with Amanda and Raffaele, and perhaps also a true memory of some minor contact then, with an erroneously reconstructed setting for that event, transporting it to his kitchen. (I am not even sure he specifies his kitchen as the locale)

The memory is wrong. On the other hand, it’s only a diary entry. He did not stammer it all. Something he thought one day some days after the crime sitting in his jail cell trying to figure it all out. It’s not as though he testified to it, or had his attorneys insist on the truth of it. It was simply a transitory reflection of a man, alone in his jail cell, trying to come to grips with why he is being wrongfully accused of this crime.


My question to you is, why do you put so much weight on items that seem so trivial? The log of every trial is littered with misstatements and erroneous memories. To me it seems you may be mistakenly elevating a minor entry in a diary up to the level of court testimony because it reinforces an image of his guilt. If so, you are not finding him guilty, you are insisting that he is.

 

[Kaosium]

Right. The police did arrest Patrick. BECAUSE of Amanda. But, hey, she just apologized to him, 3 years later. So, we know now as a fact, why he was arrested. That's now a fact.

What is a 'fact?' That the powerless Amanda Knox, barely out of her teens, took more responsibility and showed more remorse for something done by armed men with authority? I'd say that's a fact. I think it will come back to haunt them, too. This is just act two, it might not even be halfway done yet, and they can't keep a ridiculous lie like Amanda is 'responsible' for the arrest of Patrick alive forever.

You see, I know it doesn't work like that. Real police forces don't get manipulated by twenty year-old girls they're interrogating. Real police forces manipulate the twenty year-old girls they're interrogating, because, you see, they have all the power, and they know how to break them. This time, however, they broke her, but they didn't listen to her it seems. I think that's why they had to lie about the taping of the interrogation, what they were getting from her wasn't what they thought they were, perhaps the language difficulty contributed to that. It sounds like they got her to tell them just what they expected to hear, what they'd been feeding her, not realizing the poor girl didn't know what to believe anymore.

I think what happened in this case was a tragedy of errors. They were mislead by erroneous information and perhaps by a desperation to 'solve' the case, so they arrested three people who didn't have anything to do with it, and by the time the real killer was revealed they'd managed to convince themselves it was still possible two of them were involved.

Perhaps just by the bad luck of a secondary transfer or contamination of the 'murder knife,' combined with the early mistaken supposition that the break-in had to be 'staged,' as if I recall correctly that had happened in a recent case in Perugia and might have been on their minds, and maybe Filomena getting her computer knocked glass somewhere it shouldn't have been, and wasn't quite willing to admit she'd left the place kind of a mess when the cops didn't want to hear that anyway.

Oddly enough, just months after this murder, another bright young college student was murdered in her home just blocks away from where I was living at the time. (lest you get any ideas I had an ironclad alibi! ) I think the difference in the behavior of the two police departments is telling. The MPD is one of the best and most professional police departments in the US, and I don't just say that because my cousin worked his way up to one of the top positions in the entire force before retiring a few years back. So perhaps it's unfair to the Perugian Flying Pig Squad to compare them, but in the tragic case of the death of Brittany Zimmerman they didn't catch the murderer, they still haven't, and maybe they never will. Odds are it was an out of town homeless guy who'd been getting aggressive in his panhandling door to door, but no one knows for sure.

The main difference is, if you read through the link starting from the bottom, is while the MPD couldn't find the killer, they didn't just arrest someone to 'solve' the crime, and they had a number of people they could have arrested. Some even 'confessed,' others were caught in circumstances that seemed so suspicious you'd think it must have been them, but it wasn't. Evidence actually counts for something here, and none of those poor deranged souls who 'confessed' matched the evidence, and no-one on the MPD is going to try to twist the evidence to try to get it to fit someone who didn't actually commit the crime. That's what they did in Perugia, which is why all the 'evidence' comes with a 'story.'

http://www.nbc15.com/home/headlines/17230569.html

Probably, and other suppositions are not facts. I suggest we wait and see what the new jury decides. There's still a lot of evidence, which at this stage has not been asked to be re-examined, by the Defense.

It's all going to get re-examined, the initial request was to have the bogus 'evidence' completely thrown out so it can't even be presented. Then there will be another trial, but this time the prosecution won't be able to get away with pretending for so long those footprints didn't test negative for blood, that Rudy isn't a better match for that footprint on the bathmat than Raffaele, that there was a call to Amanda's mom 'before anything happened,' that there was a 'confession,' that there was Amanda and Meredith's blood mixed in the sink, that Curtalolo saw them on the basketball courts, that the time of death was 11:30 or any number of things including the celebrity-seeking twit whose testimony will probably not be accepted this time around, being as it's contested by contemporaneous records and people who were with him.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

contested forensics

Right. The police did arrest Patrick. BECAUSE of Amanda. But, hey, she just apologized to him, 3 years later. So, we know now as a fact, why he was arrested. That's now a fact. Probably, and other suppositions are not facts. I suggest we wait and see what the new jury decides. There's still a lot of evidence, which at this stage has not been asked to be re-examined, by the Defense.

capealadin,

It is comments such as the one that I highlighted that make me wonder whether or not apologizing to Patrick was a good idea. I am hard pressed to think of something that one or the other appeal did not contest. The forensics are definitely criticized in Raf's appeal.

Do you think that Dr. Stefanoni lied about not doing a TMB test to follow up the luminol tests?

 

[tronic]

Are you saying that Raffaele, the murderer of Meredith, is trying to deceive with his story about pricking Meredith while cooking *because* he did not accuse the Perugian police of corruption, or blame Amanda?

The story is a complete fabrication. He wrote the story and also he repeated it elsewhere. Why?

Naive enough to think it would be believed.

There is only one reason for creating this impossibility with the knife. He knew that Meredith Kerchers' DNA was on the knife because he was there when Amanda Knox stabbed Meredith Kercher with it. If he were innocent he would be proclaiming "of course not" .. "how can that be possible" (etc). He confirms with his story that the DNA is present. He knew the discovery of Meredith Kercher's DNA on the blade of his knife was his finish. He invented a reason for it being there other than the horrible truth. A huge faux pas.

The memory is wrong. On the other hand, it’s only a diary entry. He did not stammer it all.

It's not a 'false memory' (whatever that is) -- it's a lucid fabrication of an entire scenario (Meredith Kercher visiting his apartment, cooking, accident).

Why did he fabricate a whole scenario?

Something he thought one day some days after the crime sitting in his jail cell trying to figure it all out. It’s not as though he testified to it, or had his attorneys insist on the truth of it. It was simply a transitory reflection of a man, alone in his jail cell, trying to come to grips with why he is being wrongfully accused of this crime.

....

My question to you is, why do you put so much weight on items that seem so trivial? The log of every trial is littered with misstatements and erroneous memories.

Mis-statements and 'erroneous memories' are completely different to the fabrication of an entire scenario.

 

[moodstream]

Mrs.Columbo,

One knife could have made all three wounds.

could? I have seen no prove for this so far.

The Massei report does not rule out that one knife could make all the wounds. Instead, it decides that two knives were used because the knife with the DNA on it could not have made all the wounds.

Here is the Massei report of expert testimony about the knife: (PMF Translation)

Dr. Lalli (Coroner)

As to the means which caused the cluster of lesions , Dr. Lalli discussed a single-bladed cutting tool with a point, and assumed that those injuries were consistent with a virtually infinite number of instruments provided they had a blade with only one cutting margin, provided that the blade was not serrated P112

Professor Mauro Bacci (consultant appointed by the Public Minister)

In relation to the biggest wound the compatibility was deemed to exist on the grounds that although he was aware of the arguments against such an assessment, it was not possible to be certain in terms of attribution or exclusion (if the kitchen knife made the cut). P121

Professor Gianaristide Norelli (Consultant [expert witness] for the civil party)

At the request of the accused's [masculine, therefore Raffaele's] defence team, he … further specified that one and the same knife, smaller than that of Exhibit 36, could in principle have caused both wounds, that of the larger one on the left and that of 4 cm depth on the right. P127

Professor Francesco Introna, (consultant for Raffaele Sollecito)

the penetration must have been by the complete blade of a length of at most 8-*‐‑9 cm: ʺIf the blade had been longer, it would have gone through the neck and come out the back” p135

Professor Carlo Torre, (consultant for Amanda Knox)

He also maintained that the same small knife [coltellino15] which made this wound of 4cm in depth may have caused the more serious wound of 8cm in depth "ʺby sawing back and forth, mangling the deep tissues, and this made the wound that it could make, namely an 8cm wound.

The main wound - the 8cm one - could not have been caused by the sequestered knife (item 36), because in that region "ʺthere is nothing resistant, only the hyoid bone which is just a fragile little thing... [è roba proprio da poco]"ʺ. Thus, not encountering any resistant structures, especially during an insistent action, the use of a knife with a blade 17cm long would "ʺcertainly have gone right through the neck"p146


Professor Umani Ronchi (appointed by the judge (GIP) at the preliminary hearing)

He recalled the opinion expressed in the expert report where the absence of significant elements to establish whether one or more than one knife had been used was affirmed,"ʺthe only possible judgment being that of the non-incompatibility of the wounds with the knife under judicial seizure", an opinion that he confirmed. In this regard, he stated that the judgement of non-incompatibility had been based on the fact that the knife was single-bladed; p151

Professor Mario Cingolani (appointed by the judge (GIP) at the preliminary hearing)

In confirming the judgment of the non-incompatibility between the confiscated knife, Exhibit 36, and the major wound, p154

Dr. Patumi, (Consultant for Amanda Knox)

This wound was 4cm wide, 8 cm long, with a cut 8 cm deep. The superior rim, the upper margin, of this wound presented two accessory incisions, signifying that, certainly, the victim was not struck by a single blow "but rather by multiple blows, not fewer than three, i.e., the blows were repeated after the first knifing at least two more times" (page 87 of the transcripts)

On the lower edge was noted "… an area we can define as excoriated contusions" which, maintained Dr. Patumi, "represents in all likelihood the anterior face of the handle of the grip of the knife, of the cutting implement that was used...in the moment in which the knife wound was inflicted, the anterior part of the knife came into close contact, in strict contiguity with the skin, pushing it [the skin] inwards, rubbing against the skin creating this type of image" (pages 87 and 88). Consequently, the confiscated knife, Exhibit 36, with a blade length of a good 17cm, could not have caused a cut of 8cm.
The final argument supporting its incompatibility was constituted by the repetition of blows and their violence,


________________________________________

Reading all of this, I find it not at all hard to believe that one knife could have made all of the wounds. The wound the kitchen knife is claimed to have made is 8cm long and 8cm deep, made with repetitive strokes. I find it very hard to believe that the 17.5 cm kitchen knife could have made this cut.

Thus, not only could it be that one knife made all the cuts, it’s highly unlikely a second knife made some of the cuts, and even if so, realistically impossible for that second knife to have been the 17.5 cm bladed kitchen knife found in Sollecito apartment.

 

[Kaosium]

The story is a complete fabrication. He wrote the story and also he repeated it elsewhere. Why?

Naive enough to think it would be believed.

There is only one reason for creating this impossibility with the knife. He knew that Meredith Kerchers' DNA was on the knife because he was there when Amanda Knox stabbed Meredith Kercher with it. If he were innocent he would be proclaiming "of course not" .. "how can that be possible" (etc). He confirms with his story that the DNA is present. He knew the discovery of Meredith Kercher's DNA on the blade of his knife was his finish. He invented a reason for it being there other than the horrible truth. A huge faux pas.

It's not a 'false memory' (whatever that is) -- it's a lucid fabrication of an entire scenario (Meredith Kercher visiting his apartment, cooking, accident).

Why did he fabricate a whole scenario?

Mis-statements and 'erroneous memories' are completely different to the fabrication of an entire scenario.

Let's look at the actual statement:

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=49

The fact that there is Meredith's DNA on the kitchen is because
once while cooking together, I shifted myself in the house handling
the knife, I had the point on her hand, and immediately after I
apologized but she had nothing done to her. So the only real
explanation of the kitchen knife is this.

The way he says it so matter-o-factly suggests to me he'd already thought of it, which is why I wonder if it's what he told police in the interrogation. They told him they found a knife of his with Meredith's DNA, and he thought of this, stoned on hash. So they went looking for it and then 'found it' thinking they had an admission. That would explain why they'd pick such an odd knife, one unlikely to match the wounds and in his drawer when the obvious thing to do is to throw a murder knife, not cut your food with it and remember it with every meal.

Has anyone actually disproven that there was a time he cooked and Meredith was present and this knife might have been too? I know the girls had plenty of knives themselves, but is that all the proof rests on that it cannot be true? I personally think he was just creating a scenario where there might be Meredith's DNA on one of his knives, probably because he was scared and didn't know what to say.

Or perhaps he's just writing in his diary and my supposition above is specious. At any rate I can't see how it could make a knife that didn't match the wounds, or the outline, or could have been wielded by a girl who didn't leave a single trace at the scene and which had such a tiny amount of DNA in such an unlikely spot, into a murder weapon. How did they get the blood out of the cracks but not whatever it was off the broad part of the blade?

 

[Malkmus]

There is only one reason for creating this impossibility with the knife. He knew that Meredith Kerchers' DNA was on the knife because he was there when Amanda Knox stabbed Meredith Kercher with it. If he were innocent he would be proclaiming "of course not" .. "how can that be possible" (etc). He confirms with his story that the DNA is present. He knew the discovery of Meredith Kercher's DNA on the blade of his knife was his finish. He invented a reason for it being there other than the horrible truth. A huge faux pas.

While waiting for the forensics results to come back Raffaele wrote that it would be impossible for any DNA to be found on it.

Nov. 12 2007:

it is impossible that they find any traces on my shoe and on my knife and this story will have a happy ending for me and for you...

You know what might actually be suspicious? If he had preempted the testing of the knife with his story. Something along the lines of They're testing the knife but if they find anything it's because I pricked Meredith's hand with it.

Instead he preempts the finding by saying it will be "impossible" that anything incriminating will be found on it.
Next, on the 16th, his lawyer tells him that traces were found on the knife belonging to Amanda and Meredith, but tells him to not worry since Amanda could have borrowed the knife to use at the cottage.
And finally, on the 18th, he finds out that he is not being let go because of the DNA on the knife. He then recounts the scenario about pricking Meredith (or rather "touching" Meredith with the knife by accident). So...

Here's why the story might have been a possibility to Raf:

1. The knife is being tested. Raf says it will be "impossible" that anything is found on it.
2. His lawyer tells him that Amanda could have borrowed and brought the knife to the cottage.
3. Raf is faced with the forensics results from Rome. Irrefutable proof that Meredith's came into contact with that knife. The impossible has become reality and there has to be an explanation for it.
4. *Raf remembers a time when he was at Amanda's helping Meredith cook and touched Meredith's hand with the tip of the knife, but not hurting her. Since he has been told by his lawyer that the knife may have at some point been at the cottage, he tells himself that this must be the explanation of the DNA.

* This is based on Amanda's testimony that Raf had been to the cottage approximately three times and would talk to Meredith when he was there. In Raf's diary he does not specify whose home he was at when the knife incident occurred. Also, in Italian Raf writes about touching Meredith's hand with the "tip" of the blade but that she wasn't hurt. No mention of blood. Therefore, it seems entirely plausible that during one of his visits to the cottage, he spoke to Meredith while she or Amanda was preparing a meal, picked up a knife and touched her with it by accident.

 

[moodstream]

The story is a complete fabrication. He wrote the story and also he repeated it elsewhere. Why?

Naive enough to think it would be believed.

There is only one reason for creating this impossibility with the knife. He knew that Meredith Kerchers' DNA was on the knife because he was there when Amanda Knox stabbed Meredith Kercher with it. If he were innocent he would be proclaiming "of course not" .. "how can that be possible" (etc). He confirms with his story that the DNA is present. He knew the discovery of Meredith Kercher's DNA on the blade of his knife was his finish. He invented a reason for it being there other than the horrible truth. A huge faux pas.

It's not a 'false memory' (whatever that is) -- it's a lucid fabrication of an entire scenario (Meredith Kercher visiting his apartment, cooking, accident).

Why did he fabricate a whole scenario?

Mis-statements and 'erroneous memories' are completely different to the fabrication of an entire scenario.

The crux of my argument is that you are elevating the trivial unwarrantedly.

There is only one reason for creating this impossibility with the knife.

That’s obviously not so, as I just gave you a reason. What you may mean to say is there is only one reason you will accept. That’s different.

He knew that Meredith Kerchers' DNA was on the knife because he was there when Amanda Knox stabbed Meredith Kercher with it. If he were innocent he would be proclaiming "of course not" .. "how can that be possible"

I would like to point out this argument works equally well if he were guilty. He could just as well exclaim ‘impossible’ ‘of course not’ … ‘police corruption’.

The problem Sollecito has here, if he is guilty, is that the story will soon be debunked. Why would he set himself up for recrimination, do you suppose? Presumably his story was not even supported by Amanda Knox. If they jointly killed Kercher, don’t you think she would?

He confirms with his story that the DNA is present.

Speaking of lurid fabrications…. Are you trying to get the word confirm to mean confess? How could an untrue statement confirm a true statement? If it were true that the DNA transferred in a kitchen encounter, then, that might explain how the DNA got there. If it is untrue, it cannot explain it. The story does not contain an additional implication. You’re free to add one, but that’s you. Perhaps if you had a factual account of the motivation for the statement, the implication, i.e lying or innocent error, could be established.

Why did he fabricate a whole scenario?

I have a picture of him writing a script with dialogue from your phrase ‘whole scenario’. As opposed to what?

_________________________________________
Here is what he says in his diary about the knife up to the ‘lucid fabrication’
November 16, 2007

I saw on TV yesterday evening that the knife that I had at home (the one from the kitchen) has traces of Meredith and Amanda (latent)... I was breathless [mi è salito in cuore in gola] and I also got into a total panic because I thought that Amanda had killed Meredith or that she had at least helped someone kill her [nell’impresa]. ButI saw Tiziano today who calmed me down: he told me that the knife could not have been the murder weapon, according to the medical examiner [medico legale], and that it has nothing to do with anything because Amanda could have taken it and carried it from my house to her house since the girls didnʹt have a knife like that one [così],

November 18, 2007

They are keeping me in jail because of the kitchen knife that has a DNA trace belonging to Meredith. It seems like a horror movie... Thinking back and remembering, I remembered that that night father sent me a goodnight SMS message to be indiscreet [indiscreto, sic] (knowing that I was with Amanda), then, the following day, Amanda kept on telling me that if she had not been with me, she would be dead now [a quest’ora].

Thinking and reconstructing, I think that she always remained with me; the only thing I do not remember exactly is if she went out for a few minutes in the early evening. I am convinced that she could not have killed Meredith and then come back home. The fact that there is Meredithʹs DNA on the kitchen knife is because on one occasion, while we were cooking together, I, while moving around at home [and] handling the knife, pricked her hand, and I apologized at once but she was not hurt [lei non si era fatta niente]. So the only real explanation for that kitchen knife is this one.

____________________________

First, I would like to point out that he was not writing that to you. The statement was not addressed to you, to the prosecution, the court, the jury, nor the media. It was meant as a tool to help him reconstruct the events and catalog them as accurately as possible for the benefit of his attorneys.

To me, his writing describes his life as it is happening to him at that time. He is recording the thoughts he is having at the time. You can read the progression of thinking. This is not a pre-packaged alibi. In fact, he has to first conclude that Amanda did not take the knife and murder Ms Kercher. If he were guilty, this conversation would be unnecessary. He thinks, well, maybe Amanda took it to the cottage. Then two days later he has another thought, maybe she pricked her hand cooking with me. He does use the words ‘at home’ , but it isn’t completely clear from this that he means his house, and not the cottage, building on the Amanda took the knife there once.

My reading of this suggests that prior to learning about the knife on TV, Raffaele could not have told you if that knife was in his kitchen drawer, the kitchen at the cottage, or somewhere else. That knife was completely out of his mind.

When Sollecito says, I, while moving around at home [and] handling the knife, pricked her hand,, I believe he has the image in his mind of a different knife entirely. It’s unwieldy to ‘move around’ with the knife, and ‘pricking’ isn’t exactly the result from getting a poke with a 17.5 cm blade.

And, as I said at the beginning, you are making too much of this. It’s just a trivial off the cuff thought intended to be reviewed by his attorneys. It was never meant to be a declaration of truth.

 

[Kaosium]

While waiting for the forensics results to come back Raffaele wrote that it would be impossible for any DNA to be found on it.

Nov. 12 2007:



You know what might actually be suspicious? If he had preempted the testing of the knife with his story. Something along the lines of They're testing the knife but if they find anything it's because I pricked Meredith's hand with it.

Instead he preempts the finding by saying it will be "impossible" that anything incriminating will be found on it.

I thought the knife he was saying it was 'impossible' was the one he had on him when he wandered into the police station so 'smoked?' The one they found the DNA on was a kitchen knife in his drawer, wasn't it?

 

[Mary_H]

I've stated, as clearly as I know how, that I do not think either Amanda or Raffaele are guilty as charged (the "calumnia" bit aside.)

What do you think they are guilty of?

Where were we? Oh, yes, Amanda, finding herself reduced to victim status in a threatening, patriarchal setting, was made to feel that her place was to do as she was told. And Raf? He was pulled behind closed doors and, with Amanda still cartwheeling in the waiting area, is informed that "hard evidence" placing her at the scene has been discovered, and she has confessed to being there. Raf, whether through panic or anger, starts babbling that he really has no idea where Amanda was at the time in question. So then the police start on Amanda, discover the cell phone contact with Lumumba, pull their "hard evidence" card from their sleeve, and hit her with Raf's "astonishing" confession. And not a hint of these rogue tactics comes to light in Amanda's grueling cross-examination. Perhaps I'd better stop right here.

If they didn't come to light in her testimony, then how is it we are aware of them?

P.S. There is reason to believe the police were aware of Amanda's cell phone contact with Lumumba before the interrogation.

 

[capealadin]

Oh, I get it! Amanda's witchcraft made the Perugian Police make all their mistakes! After all, this is a witch trial.

I honestly don't get your posts. Maybe it's just me

 

[RoseMontague]

I've stated, as clearly as I know how, that I do not think either Amanda or Raffaele are guilty as charged (the "calumnia" bit aside.)

Where were we? Oh, yes, Amanda, finding herself reduced to victim status in a threatening, patriarchal setting, was made to feel that her place was to do as she was told. And Raf? He was pulled behind closed doors and, with Amanda still cartwheeling in the waiting area, is informed that "hard evidence" placing her at the scene has been discovered, and she has confessed to being there. Raf, whether through panic or anger, starts babbling that he really has no idea where Amanda was at the time in question. So then the police start on Amanda, discover the cell phone contact with Lumumba, pull their "hard evidence" card from their sleeve, and hit her with Raf's "astonishing" confession. And not a hint of these rogue tactics comes to light in Amanda's grueling cross-examination. Perhaps I'd better stop right here.

I really didn't see a lot of grilling during her grueling c-e. It seemed mostly focused on her inadmissible statements (LOL) and an unremembered phone call at a time no call was made. Most of the arguing was between the lawyers and I didn't see a lot of hard questions. Somebody should have asked her how she broke the window in Filomena's room from the inside and made the glass pattern look like it was broken from the outside. They should have asked how she managed to clean her and Raffaele's footprints in Meredith's room yet left the ones of Rudy. They could have at least explored why they brought the murder weapon back home and placed it back in the cutlery drawer. And what in the world was she doing at Quintavalle's store the next morning? Did she steal something?

I agree with you that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent of murder. The only solid evidence against AK and RS is that they lied. The reason for the lies are the main questions TBD.

 

[capealadin]

What do you think they are guilty of?




If they didn't come to light in her testimony, then how is it we are aware of them?

P.S. There is reason to believe the police were aware of Amanda's cell phone contact with Lumumba before the interrogation.

Where is the reason to believe the police had this information? How soon before the interrogation do you think they had it? Amanda had accompanied Raffaele. She hadn't been called in, at that point.

 

[RoseMontague]

Where is the reason to believe the police had this information? How soon before the interrogation do you think they had it? Amanda had accompanied Raffaele. She hadn't been called in, at that point.

They were already intercepting and recording her phone calls. It would seem to me highly probable that they had her phone records.
Amanda had already been interrogated several times over the course of three days regardless if she was called in, asked in, or brought in.

 

[capealadin]

I'm impressed, Rose M. Finally, you write that there is SOLID evidence that Amanda and Raffaele lied. This is the first time, that I can remember, that one of the innoscenti has said this, without a caveat.

 

[capealadin]

They were already intercepting and recording her phone calls. It would seem to me highly probable that they had her phone records.
Amanda had already been interrogated several times over the course of three days regardless if she was called in, asked in, or brought in.

I don't know how the message could have seemed incriminating, at that point. " Don't come into work tonight". "OK, See you later. "

 

[RoseMontague]

I don't know how the message could have seemed incriminating, at that point. " Don't come into work tonight". "OK, See you later. "

IIRC, Matteini indicated it was to establish an alibi for Patrick.

 

[RoseMontague]

I'm impressed, Rose M. Finally, you write that there is SOLID evidence that Amanda and Raffaele lied. This is the first time, that I can remember, that one of the innoscenti has said this, without a caveat.

I have said this all along, including when I was allowed to post at PMF.