Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[moodstream]

That's *your* conspiracy theory. Why bother to take the time?



Oh yeah.. they hooked them up to another computer, and fried them, one after the other, so bad no one is even sure if the manufacturer can find a way retrieve the data.You act like it's okay ( let alone possible) for the police looking into the hard drive contents to have no experience and be unable to foretell the consequences of their action. Do you believe that?





Interesting you should bring that up. Here is a quote from a CNN article from 11/22/07 that may explain it:

Wednesday, Maori said the defense team had examined a clone of Sollecito's hard drive that showed he was in his house and using the computer from 8:30 p.m. on November 1 to 1:33 a.m. on November 2. http://articles.cnn.com/2007-11-22/...-italian-judge-raffaele-sollecito?_s=PM:WORLD

Sorry, I realize now that I am in error about the date the hard drives were checked and the clone the defense had came from the police. My post was in error in this regard.

The hard drives were ruined at some point between Nov 5th and I guess about Nov 13th, when the attempt to clone the hard drives occurred. The computers were in police custody when the damage occurred and foul play is a strong possibility.

 

[Mary_H]

Whatever happened the night she accused Patrick- and amanda herself didn't claim then she was abused or coerced- the fact still remains that she had two whole weeks during which he was in jail when she might have offered to correct her "mistaken" accusation.
She was bugged telling her mother of his innocence during this time.

What did the police do with the information they obtained from the recording?

 

[Moss]

Moss,

IIRC, ILE had a tough time transcribing and/or understanding the conversation between Raffaele and Amanda. Given that experience, you would think that they would want to record the interview so that they could go over it as many times as they wanted.

One of the explanations was that they were so involved with arresting Patrick that they overlooked recording the interview. That does not explain anything that happened prior to Amanda's false accusation, IMHO.

Maybe, maybe not. As I said before it might depend on the situation. As I said before: In an interview you can always attempt to clarify and reiterate. That may not work for private conversations that by their very nature you tape anyway.
The quote Rose provided seems to indicate that Mignini in his office recorded interviews. I'm not sure if that indicates that the same is true for the police station. There may be a different modus operandi at work. Lumping that together under ILE IMO may be an error.

 

[loverofzion]

What did the police do with the information they obtained from the recording?

I assume verified his alibi; he was released very shortly after his alibi was confirmed.

Surely you are expending too much energy to bend over backwards to whitewash amanda's very clear and very direct accusation of Patrick. "I saw him there" at the murder scene is hardly a "cultural" artifact.
The Perugia police were doing their duty when they arrested him; and again when they later freed him AFTER investigating amanda's false claims against him.

This little act of amanda's (that "best truth that I can think of") will further serve to bring a second guilty verdict further down the road in the appeals decision.

 

[loverofzion]

Reporters came to Seattle after the arrest to try and dig the dirt. They couldn't find anybody to say anything bad about Amanda.

Well seom reporters sure did.

 

[loverofzion]

I think they'd have been better off if they'd just gone away for the day like they'd planned, it sure didn't hurt the others who were gone.

However, if they were guilty why not clean up the bathroom at the very least, so there wouldn't be any traces of Amanda to mix in when Rudy washed up there? They called the police before they had a chance to do any clean up, and I recall one juror saying in something Fine posted about a month ago that the DNA traces mixing in the sink were something that convinced her of guilt, and she'd thought they it was the blood of both of them.



Why would she want to protect Rudy at all? Who would have blamed her if she just said she was scared and hid from him? They'd have never even looked for that knife, they'd have been looking for Rudy straight away.



Isn't that interesting?

At any rate, if she's going to 'admit' she was there, at that point why not just say Rudy threatened to kill her and/or Raffaele, and no one could 'protect' her forever? As far as she would 'know' Rudy disappeared.




That's my point: why didn't he? He's seen the news reports, he knows they arrested Raffaele and Amanda, when he tells his story about being on the crapper why not have Amanda and Raffaele be doing the killing instead of the left-handed stranger? In reality (my opinion) Rudy knew they didn't have anything to do with it, but made up a one attacker scenario because he probably figured that's what the police would have evidence of, just as the original coroner said before he got sacked.

If guilty he'd 'know' they were guilty of something and might not have the teeniest bit of conscious which apparently caused him to avoid implicating them in the (my opinion) real circumstance where they're innocent and he came back with a story about a left-handed stranger, and never actually went the whole way and definitively accused them even when it was definitely in his benefit to do so. In the guilt scenario he'd figure they'd leave something at the scene, even if it's just because Amanda and/or Raffaele went to Meredith's room afterward to see what happened.



Oh, dear, am I walking into something?

Rudy has twice named amanda and raf as co perpretrators of the murder and sexual assault.
The only reason amanda and raf didn't finger Rudy was that he would have implicated them.
Because all three are guilty each is hiding his own role, and hoping the other two continue to play the same game.
Surely it is a matter of time until one- possibly raf?- breaks and spills the whole truth of what went down that evening.

 

[RoseMontague]

Maybe, maybe not. As I said before it might depend on the situation. As I said before: In an interview you can always attempt to clarify and reiterate. That may not work for private conversations that by their very nature you tape anyway.
The quote Rose provided seems to indicate that Mignini in his office recorded interviews. I'm not sure if that indicates that the same is true for the police station. There may be a different modus operandi at work. Lumping that together under ILE IMO may be an error.

I think he is being careful to avoid a comment on the interrogation that took place before he arrived, referring to the 5:45 statement rather than the 1:45 statement. It is also clear from his comment that it (the 5:45) should have and could have been recorded. That many cops involved in these interrogations including a couple in the "control room" and everybody just forgot to record them? Mignini is careful in his answer and avoids even saying that the interrogation leading to the 1:45AM statement was not recorded.

I think it was recorded and Mignini was careful not to admit or deny that one and then after viewing the interrogation decided that it was not in the cops best interest to have recorded it.

Regarding his comment about recording interviews in his office, I think he is saying that he normally does things right when it is him doing an interview in his office. I don't think the majority of the interviews with the other flatmates and witnesses were done in his office, however. He is not really answering the question put to him, rather he is giving answers to somewhat related questions, pretending not to understand that the main focus of the question is the interrogation leading up to the 1:45AM statement.

 

[loverofzion]

Hi Halides1,
Since Mignini was at home sleeping, I believe in his bed(?), does that mean that Dr. Giobbi, who was in the director's room, is the person responsible for not ordering any audio or video recording done of this questioning of Amanda Knox the night before her Mother came to town?

For some reason I wonder if an audio/video tech tried to do their job,
but was then told by the boss that this was not necessary.
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

PS-I've mentioned before that I use a Sony micro-cassette audio recorder almost daily while working on a Great White Shark research project.
This helps me to accurately remember the facts as I see them occur.

While reading English+Italian speaking Barbie Nadeau's book Angel Face,
I noticed that on page xiv of the chapter A Note on Sources, even B. Nadeau uses video recording in her journalistic work:
"I interviewed the principal players in both cases several times and often videotaped the interviews, which resulted in more than 20 hours of exclusive footage pertinent to the case."

Excuse me, but after reading this I just have to ask this question:
Wasn't the Nov. 5/6 2007 police interview undertaken before Amanda Knox's Mother arrived in Perugia pertinent to this brutal murder case too?
With 3 previous days of questioning under their belt, how did the investigators come to believe that Amanda Knox was sufficently fluent in her mastery of the Italian language to have been able to speak her thoughts clearly and coherently enough so that the police interogators could understand her 100%? and so they therefore did not need to audio or video record this important night of questioning at any time thru out the night?

For some reason, I bet Barbie Nadeau would have video recorded this night of questioning...

There was an interpreter present throughout.
Thus, there is no danger of the Italians misunderstanding or missing anything amanda said.

 

[Mary_H]

I assume verified his alibi; he was released very shortly after his alibi was confirmed.

Well then, what difference did it make what Amanda said, if they weren't going to follow up on it? They recorded her on the 10th saying that she was wrong to accuse Patrick. They didn't release Patrick until the 20th.

Surely you are expending too much energy to bend over backwards to whitewash amanda's very clear and very direct accusation of Patrick. "I saw him there" at the murder scene is hardly a "cultural" artifact.
The Perugia police were doing their duty when they arrested him; and again when they later freed him AFTER investigating amanda's false claims against him.

They didn't investigate Amanda's false claims against him. They released him on account of his alibi, as you said above (after stalling the man who provided it for several days).

 

[loverofzion]

I think he is being careful to avoid a comment on the interrogation that took place before he arrived, referring to the 5:45 statement rather than the 1:45 statement. It is also clear from his comment that it (the 5:45) should have and could have been recorded. That many cops involved in these interrogations including a couple in the "control room" and everybody just forgot to record them? Mignini is careful in his answer and avoids even saying that the interrogation leading to the 1:45AM statement was not recorded.

I think it was recorded and Mignini was careful not to admit or deny that one and then after viewing the interrogation decided that it was not in the cops best interest to have recorded it.

Regarding his comment about recording interviews in his office, I think he is saying that he normally does things right when it is him doing an interview in his office. I don't think the majority of the interviews with the other flatmates and witnesses were done in his office, however. He is not really answering the question put to him, rather he is giving answers to somewhat related questions, pretending not to understand that the main focus of the question is the interrogation leading up to the 1:45AM statement.

The 1:45 statement (which amanda had of her own volition written out) marked the end of her interrogation as a witness, not a suspect.
After she offered the police her confession of 1:45, she became a suspect resuslting in the 5:45 statement whcih is legally admissible in court.

Mignini was home in bed at the time of the 1:45 statement.

It is that simple and clear.

 

[LondonJohn]

Happy New Year to all! I hope everyone finds 2011 to be big on good health, happiness, joy and peace, and small on illness, sorrow, hurt, anger and conflict.

Regarding the Lumumba interview in the Mail from 25th November 2007, I do indeed think that it's highly unlikely that the quotes about his mistreatment by the police were made up, or even embellished. Bear in mind that within the quotation marks were pretty serious allegations of police misconduct, including physical and racial abuse. Also bear in mind that UK newspapers have very attentive and erring-on-the-side-of-caution legal departments. They don't like paying out lots of money to people they have libelled. I would therefore be almost certain that when the paper was "legalled" before going to press, the lawyers would have demanded (and received) proof that Lumumba actually said the quotes attributed to him - whether in English, Italian or French (obviously if they were not said in English, they would also want proof that the translations were accurate). I therefore very highly suspect that the interview with Lumumba was tape recorded, and that Lumumba is on record saying exactly the quotes attributed to him. In that way, the Mail is fully indemnified against any legal action from either Lumumba or the Perugia police. I am almost certain that the Mail would not have run the story with those direct quotes within it if they were not certain that Lumumba had spoken those words, and that if necessary they could prove that he'd spoken those words.

 

[Moss]

Sorry, but I cannot follow you there. I follow you as far as the could have been recorded and probably even the should have.
I am getting quite tired of repeating it but again: Would recording that interview been the usual modus operandi in the police station? How big is the chance that Mignini assumed it would be recorded while the police assumed they wouldn't need to? Not sure what it says about me but I am quite used to miscommunication or a lack of communication about the stupidest things.
Is there actually anything he could have said in that case that you would not interprete in the way you currently do?

 

[Mary_H]

Maybe, maybe not. As I said before it might depend on the situation. As I said before: In an interview you can always attempt to clarify and reiterate. That may not work for private conversations that by their very nature you tape anyway.
The quote Rose provided seems to indicate that Mignini in his office recorded interviews. I'm not sure if that indicates that the same is true for the police station. There may be a different modus operandi at work. Lumping that together under ILE IMO may be an error.

Two Italian legal experts were interviewed by Andrea Vogt last year. Here is part of what they said in the interview:

The law is very clear: A suspect must not be interrogated without a lawyer.

Once a suspect, an interrogation must be interrupted, the suspect read his or her rights to remain silent and be provided a lawyer. Italian law does not allow waiver of one's right to counsel. Even if a suspect doesn't want a lawyer, the authorities are required to appoint one.

If a suspect's freedom of movement is hindered, the interrogation must be videotaped.

In Knox's case, a video or audio recording of the entire police interrogation -- authorities have denied that any such recordings exist -- could identify when police began treating Knox as a suspect and what procedures were followed.

In fact, Italy's Supreme Court has already said that some of her early statements may not be used against her because they were made without an attorney present.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/412696_knox30.html

As some of us have noted before, there were several violations, but no penalties for the violators, other than the Supreme Court's ruling about Amanda's statements.

The idea that there is no videotape yet the police have the right to sue Amanda for calunnia is nothing short of bizarre.

 

[loverofzion]

Well then, what difference did it make what Amanda said, if they weren't going to follow up on it? They recorded her on the 10th saying that she was wrong to accuse Patrick. They didn't release Patrick until the 20th.




They didn't investigate Amanda's false claims against him. They released him on account of his alibi, as you said above (after stalling the man who provided it for several days).

So you are saying amanda said nothing after having put Patrick in jail because "what difference did it make what amanda said"?
Sorry, I have a hard time comprehending this kind of moral compass.
She could easily have instructed her lawyers that the poor girl was bent out of shape from being denied food for two hours and that the accusation was entirely of her own making, no?
And yes, I would hope he was released after his alibi checked out. The reason for their "stalling" was that the professor who was with him that night lived abroad.

Sometimes Mary we must accept the truth for how it plays. There are not always sinister motives on the part of authorities.
Why do you suppose this is always your first reaction?

 

[LondonJohn]

There was an interpreter present throughout.
Thus, there is no danger of the Italians misunderstanding or missing anything amanda said.

There wasn't an interpreter present throughout. IIRC, Anna Donnino testified that she was telephoned at just after midnight on the 6th November, and asked to come to the police HQ. She arrived at around 12.30. And it appears that Knox's interrogation started at some time between 10.30 and 11.30 - implying that there was between one and two hours of interrogation during which time no interpreter was present.

That's just reminded me of the "barely time to set out the chairs" nonsense that used to be part of the refrain from many of those-who-believe-Knox-and-Sollecito-were-correctly-and-safely-convicted, when they were trying to claim that there was simply no time or opportunity for the police to apply any psychological pressure to Knox before she "broke" and "blurted out" her confession/accusation. But we don't here much of the "barely time to set out the chairs" mantra these days, do we? I wonder why?

 

[Mary_H]

Well seom reporters sure did.

Where is the evidence for that?

 

[Mary_H]

The 1:45 statement (which amanda had of her own volition written out) marked the end of her interrogation as a witness, not a suspect.

False. It was typed, in Italian.

After she offered the police her confession of 1:45, she became a suspect resuslting in the 5:45 statement whcih is legally admissible in court.

False. It was not allowed to be used against Amanda in her criminal trial.

Mignini was home in bed at the time of the 1:45 statement.

It is that simple and clear.

Where is your citation for that?

 

[LondonJohn]

So you are saying amanda said nothing after having put Patrick in jail because "what difference did it make what amanda said"?
Sorry, I have a hard time comprehending this kind of moral compass.
She could easily have instructed her lawyers that the poor girl was bent out of shape from being denied food for two hours and that the accusation was entirely of her own making, no?
And yes, I would hope he was released after his alibi checked out. The reason for their "stalling" was that the professor who was with him that night lived abroad.

Sometimes Mary we must accept the truth for how it plays. There are not always sinister motives on the part of authorities.
Why do you suppose this is always your first reaction?

In Knox's written communications to the police/prosecutors from 6th November, she makes it explicitly clear that she had grave doubts about her previous statement, and that on balance she now believes that she wasn't at the cottage during the murder (and therefore by definition is in no position to place Lumumba at the cottage either). You should read them.

 

[Mary_H]

I think he is being careful to avoid a comment on the interrogation that took place before he arrived, referring to the 5:45 statement rather than the 1:45 statement. It is also clear from his comment that it (the 5:45) should have and could have been recorded. That many cops involved in these interrogations including a couple in the "control room" and everybody just forgot to record them? Mignini is careful in his answer and avoids even saying that the interrogation leading to the 1:45AM statement was not recorded.

I think it was recorded and Mignini was careful not to admit or deny that one and then after viewing the interrogation decided that it was not in the cops best interest to have recorded it.

I agree. Recording in an interrogation room probably begins automatically when people enter and the door closes.

 

[RoseMontague]

Objectively, and as Greggy explained at the PMF, the same can be said of Stefanoni when grilled about her laboratory standards and conformance with protocols for the double-DNA knife. We don't hold Stefanoni or the sex killer to any different standards when discussing the case at the PMF.

Vague or evasive answers and equivocation are a distinct sign of guilt. To state otherwise is incorrect.

Happy New Year stilicho. I am wondering what you make of Stefanoni's claims prior to July 2009 regarding the DNA tested on the knife blade. This is a quote from Amanda's appeal, page 54:

During the hearing before the judge for the preliminary hearing, the geneticist stated that the method used for quantification of sample B was the finding of 36 Real-time PCR and quantification (formerly referred to as positive in the Report) was <<... order of a few hundred picograms ...>> (October 4, 2008 hearing transcript, p.. 178). And 'the evidence of absolute differences, substantial relief in order to quantification of sample B) of the specimen 36.
In the report, it was written that the quantification of sample B was tested positive.Dr. Stefanoni had explicitly given the word, and in preliminary hearing had represented the amount of track B order of a few hundred picograms, with the result Real Time PCR instrument.
Reports of acts quantification acquired in July 2009, however, attest to a significantly discordant, or the quantification of trace B 36 finding of negative results ("too low").