Continuation Part 4: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Dan O.]

In this context by "naming" I mean any identification of a specific person, not restricted to telling his name.

Such as when the police specifically identified Amanda's boss, Lumumba, when they questioned her about who the text message on her phone was sent to.

 

[katy_did]

I'm quoting my own message to say to Grinder, respectfully, that I am satisfied about Dempsey's reference to Filomena's scoffing her own laptop. If he/she is not satisfied, then I'll just have to live with that. I suppose there might or might not be some other reference, but it is not my intent here to win an argument. It is my intent here to understand the crime - for myself.

If my references are not full enough.... well, I'll just sit back knowing that there are people out there in cyberspace who think I am full of it.

Me, I am satisfied.

Whether or not Filomena did take her computer seems like a bit of a distraction from your main point (which I agree with) - that is, that by assuming the police were fixed on Amanda as prime suspect before the interrogation, we could be imposing a kind of unifying narrative on events in hindsight, while in reality the police could have been following various different suspicions and probably had as much reason to be suspicious of, say, Filomena as they did Amanda.

After all, most of the so-called clues which were supposed to be so suspicious are very weak (eating pizza and a hip swivel?!) - certainly not enough to make her prime suspect in the eyes of the police. I agree with you that the police were looking for someone with a key or with access to a key, but even this doesn't necessarily limit things to just Amanda and Filomena: it would include previous tenants and friends of the boys downstairs, who might have been able to get hold of one.

The only two pieces of evidence which really seemed to point at Amanda and Raffaele are the CCTV footage and the 112 call, and in neither of those cases is it at all clear the police knew about those things before the interrogation. With regard to the CCTV footage, that seems ripe for confirmation bias: I can see them looking at the white blob and identifying it as Amanda after she'd been arrested, but it seems less likely they could have done that with any certainty beforehand (the logical conclusion would be that it was Meredith, or even some random passer-by). And in fact, I'm not at all sure they ever really thought it was Amanda anyway; they probably just fed the lie about the "crystal-clear" image to the media to try and get Amanda to confess. It was never presented in Court (or not as being Amanda) and first appeared in the press on 12 Nov, IIRC.

The 112 call is less certain: Frank says the police faxed Mignini with the claim about the call on the day after the interrogation (so 6 Nov). If Mignini was there during the interrogation, you'd think he'd have known about it already and wouldn't have needed them to fax him, though it's also possible he needed some kind of documented evidence of it. On the other hand, it's also possible the police rustled up that information when going over Raffaele's phone records after the interrogation in their search for evidence to keep him in jail - in exactly the same way as they "matched" his shoe prints with those at the crime scene after the interrogation ended. Checking his phone records would be the natural thing to do, after all, given the success they had with Amanda's. It's impossible to say which way around things went, but I don't see any clear evidence they were aware of either of those things beforehand.

And if you take away those two pieces of evidence there's little reason to suspect Amanda other than the fact she had a key. It seems at least possible that it wasn't until they found the text message that she became the main suspect, rather than just one possible lead of several, none of which were really going anywhere before that night.

 

[anglolawyer]

Just in:
Amanda Knox filed appeal of the slander conviction

Go girl!

Far out!

 

[katy_did]

In this context by "naming" I mean any identification of a specific person, not restricted to telling his name.

But Amanda did identify him in the list she gave police of men who'd visited the flat downstairs or who knew Meredith, didn't she? She just didn't remember his name.

This is another of those situations where no matter what she did, it would be twisted as evidence of guilt. If she'd named him, she'd be accused of trying to direct police suspicions towards him. If she didn't, it's because she was covering for him. By identifying him but not naming him, I guess she was trying to have it both ways: put him in the frame without being too obvious about it.

I'm not clear whether you knew that Amanda had listed Rudy among the men who'd visited the downstairs flat, but if you didn't, how does that change your position on this?

 

[katy_did]

Just in:
Amanda Knox filed appeal of the slander conviction

Go girl!

I'll probably be the 5th person to post this once it gets through moderation, but Amanda is appealing the slander conviction.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/amanda-knox-appeals-slander-conviction/story?id=15523721

Thanks Dougm and Katody! Good news.

 

[anglolawyer]

Well, this is clearly not Polynesian sociology.
I meant a prohibition imposed by herself not by some society.
She could not implicate Rudy for trivial reasons.

What were the trivial reasons?

 

[Grinder]

As for me, I have recently recanted from the belief that Knox is criminally liable for Lumumba's obviously unjust imprisoning. Again, I don't really want to repeat here all the reasons - I think what is key, though, is Mignini's CNN interview from May 2011, where he, himself, describes his own role in the 1:45 am to 5:45 am 6 Nov interrogation.

With as much respect as possible, had Mignini not given the interview she would be just as innocent of calunnia as with it. The key is what the police chief said the next day not what Mignini said years later.

Yup, he's one of them who suffered unjustly in prison. I don't really want to repost ALL the discussion on this point, but if you're interested you might want to read back or go to Injustice in Perugia where it is covered as well.

FYI Bolint has been around for a long time and read most of the dialog at the time.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Rudy was taboo for her. She had never mentioned his name before he was caught, even after that she did it very rarely.
However, she did give indirect hints by not flushing the toilet.

Naah, She probably didn't know or remember his name in the days of interrogation but I think she did mention him and she listed him as one of the men who knew Meredith.

 

[anglolawyer]

So,

Knox panicked and named Lumumba, but wasn't panicked enough to slip up and name the first name that came into her head - the guy she would have known was definetly there - Geude.

She was panicked enough to remain calm enough to think things through and name Lumumba in her calm panic. Makes sense to me.

I think you're overlooking Barbie's theory: they were so drugged up they killed Meredith and firgot all about it. Days later at the questura, Amanda could only confusedly remember a black guy was there and the only one she knew was Lumumba so it musta been him!

Anyway, this is not bolint's thesis which, so far as I am concerned, has not been properly expained. None of us gets why they didn't just drop Rudy in it. His name was 'taboo for trivial reasons' does not make sense.

 

[Bill Williams]

Whether or not Filomena did take her computer seems like a bit of a distraction from your main point (which I agree with) - that is, that by assuming the police were fixed on Amanda as prime suspect before the interrogation, we could be imposing a kind of unifying narrative on events in hindsight, while in reality the police could have been following various different suspicions and probably had as much reason to be suspicious of, say, Filomena as they did Amanda.

Finally, someone who 'gets it' and you have phrased it better.....

After all, most of the so-called clues which were supposed to be so suspicious are very weak (eating pizza and a hip swivel?!) - certainly not enough to make her prime suspect in the eyes of the police. I agree with you that the police were looking for someone with a key or with access to a key, but even this doesn't necessarily limit things to just Amanda and Filomena: it would include previous tenants and friends of the boys downstairs, who might have been able to get hold of one.

I think at this point, what with the information-tsunami that unduly focussed on Knox, it may well be nigh impossible to reconstruct the information that focussed on other potential keyholders, or the long list of people either Filomena or Knox, or Laura for that matter, could have loaned their key to.

The point I was trying to make, though, was that Filomena scoffing her laptop makes her more "of interest" than Knox doing carwheels or sticking out her tongue at or laughing with Raffaele.

The only two pieces of evidence which really seemed to point at Amanda and Raffaele are the CCTV footage and the 112 call, and in neither of those cases is it at all clear the police knew about those things before the interrogation. With regard to the CCTV footage, that seems ripe for confirmation bias: I can see them looking at the white blob and identifying it as Amanda after she'd been arrested, but it seems less likely they could have done that with any certainty beforehand (the logical conclusion would be that it was Meredith, or even some random passer-by). And in fact, I'm not at all sure they ever really thought it was Amanda anyway; they probably just fed the lie about the "crystal-clear" image to the media to try and get Amanda to confess. It was never presented in Court (or not as being Amanda) and first appeared in the press on 12 Nov, IIRC.

Given the way the police leaked things to the press, I am with you. I read one early newpaper report, one vilifying Knox "the story-changer", also expressing dis-ease at all the leaks coming from the police. It is clear that the police where exchanging "leaks" for good coverage, and in my opinion also withholding leaks from those journalists not willing to play ball. The current phone hacking scandal in the U.K. is only now describing the more general dynamics of those sorts of things.

And if you take away those two pieces of evidence there's little reason to suspect Amanda other than the fact she had a key. It seems at least possible that it wasn't until they found the text message that she became the main suspect, rather than just one possible lead of several, none of which were really going anywhere before that night.

But do not underestimate the importance of following key-holders, esp. ones who did not say, "Yes, I lent it to so-and-so, and really have no idea if they'd have copied it..."

Don't forget also the theory that Commissioner Marco Chiacchiera seemed to be "in charge of", namely finding out who had got close to Meredith at the Hallowe'en dance. Had she made a date with her killer? That was in the early reports, too.

I think early on "suspicion odds" for police were, 5% Knox, 10% Romanelli, 20% someone MK had met a the dance, and 65% we have not yet found the lead we need. Remember, these suspicion odds were not to suspect the person in question of any crimes, but that following them and developing further leads from them would hit the jackpot.

It's why I think the cops were, indeed, completely caught off-guard to find (in their misinterpreting of Knox, and the leading of her into imagining) that their most unlikely, but unlawyered-up, person (Knox) was it!

 

[Bill Williams]

With as much respect as possible, had Mignini not given the interview she would be just as innocent of calunnia as with it. The key is what the police chief said the next day not what Mignini said years later.

The key for me was reading Mignini's own words. I had been unaware of up until then how much depended on the nature of a "spontaneuos" confession by Knox, or her "spontaneous-without-prompting" blurting out of Lumumba's name.

That's why PGP (and Hellman on calunnia) believe Knox is guilty. That's why they repeat the meme, "all the lies she told".

Mignini demonstrates his own difficulty with truthfulness by claiming only to be "a notary" at the second interrogation, so that he could maintain the "spontaneity" of what Knox was supposed to be "blurting out afresh, again." And it took him FOUR HOURS to get her to be spontaneous!!!!!

And he had to have NO LAWYER present - afterall, he was "only a notary" not an inquisitor. And he couldn't allow it to be videotaped (or destroyed the tapes later) because it would show the "little taps on the back of the head just for encouragement..."

 

[Malkmus]

In this context by "naming" I mean any identification of a specific person, not restricted to telling his name.

But she did, according to Ficarra's notes:

Amanda reported finally another South African young man of color, short, who plays basketball in the court at Piazza Grimana, and who had on one occasion frequented the house of the young men living in the house (Giacomo, Stefano, Riccardo, and Marco) and on that occasion she was present as well as Meredith.

Dempsey, Candace (2010-04-27). Murder in Italy (p. 142). Berkley.

But it seems that whether she indicated Rudy or not doesn't matter to PGP. If she didn't name him it's because she was afraid he would blame her. If she did name him it's because she was trying to throw him under the bus. Much like everything else she did or didn't do.

 

[Grinder]

There was no need for a key. The door was left open and unlocked but Meredith's door was locked. The killer could have entered by the window, been let in by Meredith or forced his way in as she returned.

The police clearly had many reasons to have more focus on Amanda and Raffaele than on the others. Filomena had multiple witnesses to her alibi. Read Amanda's notes to see that she herself knew that her accounting of her activities the night of the murder were not complete and entirely too vague.

 

[Dougm]

The key for me was reading Mignini's own words. I had been unaware of up until then how much depended on the nature of a "spontaneuos" confession by Knox, or her "spontaneous-without-prompting" blurting out of Lumumba's name.

That's why PGP (and Hellman on calunnia) believe Knox is guilty. That's why they repeat the meme, "all the lies she told".

Mignini demonstrates his own difficulty with truthfulness by claiming only to be "a notary" at the second interrogation, so that he could maintain the "spontaneity" of what Knox was supposed to be "blurting out afresh, again." And it took him FOUR HOURS to get her to be spontaneous!!!!!

And he had to have NO LAWYER present - afterall, he was "only a notary" not an inquisitor. And he couldn't allow it to be videotaped (or destroyed the tapes later) because it would show the "little taps on the back of the head just for encouragement..."

To me, once I had read all the evidence, heard the actual statements and testimony from Amanda that were supposed to be so damning, it became obvious to me that Mignini, the police, etc. were coming up with the version of the facts that fit the conclusion, not the other way around. His bit about saying she gave a spontaneous statement that she just HAD to get off her chest, and he obliged her by taking the statement down, is just another one is a long line of unbelievable stories that don't fit the facts. It wouldn't even make sense if she were guilty! Why is she telling some lame story that, if she had been guilty, she knows can be disproven? She is frightened and wants to unburden herself? That would make sense if what she told was true. But they want to have it both ways. They want to say she is both lying, and implicating herself at the same time.

I understand the discussion here about how the police did not have rational reason to have singled out Amanda and Raffaele, but I think that once they saw what they thought was odd behavior, from the kissing, to the stretching/cartwheels, to the pizza eating, hip swivel, it all confirmed to them that she was involved somehow. And their MO in these crimes is to arrest first, and put together the facts later. It probably even works a lot of the time.

 

[anglolawyer]

Bill and Katy

Don't you think Knox's presence on the morning after, taking a shower in the blood-stained bathroom with Meredith lying dead on the other side of her bedroom door is what makes her, among all key holders, of much more interest than anyone else?

To this day, we have only her word for it that she was only aware of the open front door and blood in the bathroom as possible alarm bell ringers, before she dried her hair and noticed the faeces. Surely it's this and the minute and hyper-critical (and inaccurate - the postal police arriving before the call to the carabinieri) scrutiny of her and Raffaele's conduct and decision making that day which put them in the frame.

 

[RandyN]

Whether or not Filomena did take her computer seems like a bit of a distraction from your main point (which I agree with) - that is, that by assuming the police were fixed on Amanda as prime suspect before the interrogation, we could be imposing a kind of unifying narrative on events in hindsight, while in reality the police could have been following various different suspicions and probably had as much reason to be suspicious of, say, Filomena as they did Amanda.

Perhaps but nothing indicates the police paid anything but a passing glance at Filomena who had her lawyer (boss) at her side and who even visited the crime scene on 2 Nov 2007. There is just no way of knowing who else the police were looking at early on. We do have the chiefs statements on the morning of the 6th that gives us a peek t what they were thinking though.


After all, most of the so-called clues which were supposed to be so suspicious are very weak (eating pizza and a hip swivel?!) - certainly not enough to make her prime suspect in the eyes of the police. I agree with you that the police were looking for someone with a key or with access to a key, but even this doesn't necessarily limit things to just Amanda and Filomena: it would include previous tenants and friends of the boys downstairs, who might have been able to get hold of one.

Don't forget the knife drawer reaction of AK and the certainty (which was stupid police work) of a staged break-in.


The only two pieces of evidence which really seemed to point at Amanda and Raffaele are the CCTV footage and the 112 call, and in neither of those cases is it at all clear the police knew about those things before the interrogation. With regard to the CCTV footage, that seems ripe for confirmation bias: I can see them looking at the white blob and identifying it as Amanda after she'd been arrested, but it seems less likely they could have done that with any certainty beforehand (the logical conclusion would be that it was Meredith, or even some random passer-by). And in fact, I'm not at all sure they ever really thought it was Amanda anyway; they probably just fed the lie about the "crystal-clear" image to the media to try and get Amanda to confess. It was never presented in Court (or not as being Amanda) and first appeared in the press on 12 Nov, IIRC.

I doubt that either of the two pieces you call evidence had even entered the minds of the police at least in any way that indicated anything other than slight circumstantial evidence. I agree that nothing would lead one to think the white blob could certainly be Knox...especially before the interrogation.

I think the police were intrigued by Lumumbas approach and conversation with Knox on Monday morning (the 5th) outside her class room. Its certain that both AK and RS were being tailed by then. Now the police see Amanda approached by a black man who they may or may not know. Were they able to link a call between the two on the night of the murder without seeing the actual phones? I don't suppose it matters at that point yet but this meeting is where the police get the idea of Lumumba...not from a SMS between the two. That SMS confirmed what they thought ....that maybe this black man who approaches Amanda Monday morning and keeps her in deep conversation just might be worth taking a closer look at. The text message (from the night of the murder) confirms their preconceived ideas at that point. That is why they suggest him to Amanda and also why they arrest Lumumba on so very little.


The 112 call is less certain: Frank says the police faxed Mignini with the claim about the call on the day after the interrogation (so 6 Nov). If Mignini was there during the interrogation, you'd think he'd have known about it already and wouldn't have needed them to fax him, though it's also possible he needed some kind of documented evidence of it. On the other hand, it's also possible the police rustled up that information when going over Raffaele's phone records after the interrogation in their search for evidence to keep him in jail - in exactly the same way as they "matched" his shoe prints with those at the crime scene after the interrogation ended. Checking his phone records would be the natural thing to do, after all, given the success they had with Amanda's. It's impossible to say which way around things went, but I don't see any clear evidence they were aware of either of those things beforehand.

Again, I doubt RS reporting the break-in was something important to the case at this point. Giobbi wanted to watch these two separately and together. He also wanted to find out if the black guy from that very morning fit in somehow...and with the text message discovered between the two on the exact date of the murder it would seem to them that they struck gold...but we all know now that it was fools gold.


And if you take away those two pieces of evidence there's little reason to suspect Amanda other than the fact she had a key. It seems at least possible that it wasn't until they found the text message that she became the main suspect, rather than just one possible lead of several, none of which were really going anywhere before that night.

No...the police have convinced themselves by this point that the scene is staged. That wrong assumption leads them to the idea of a key holder although I cant figure out why. Its easily as likely that MK let her killer in and the police even thought it may be someone she made a date with on Halloween night since the papers were reporting that as early as 4 Nov 2007.

I think the key to Amandas arrest was the result of Lumumba approaching her outside her school and then them finding a text message between the two on the night of the murder. I also don't think there was a misunderstanding about a meeting in "see you later". That is clear from Franks recent posts where he mentions the words left out by Mignini. He leaves in "see you later" but the official story forgets to add the Goodnight part. Nothing was lost in translation...at least from Migninis standpoint.



Its funny Ficarra had any free hands (what with all the slapping) to be able to take any notes...she is the chestnut haired one after all.

 

[Bill Williams]

The difficulty people with an "innocence" point of view have in relation to Amanda Knox's statements (Memorandum #1 @ 1:45 am, and Memorandum #2 @ 5:45 am) is regarding two issues, two issues tantalizingly similar, but the difference, however small, is everything.

As tempting as it is to see the issue here as whether or not Knox's statements were "coerced", I now think that's not the issue. People who believe in innocence and believe the signed statements to be bollocks should not argue on the basis of "coersion".

In discerning the true nature of these statements, and how they should apply to guilt or innocence, or whether or not Knox committed calunnia in implicating an innocent man (Lumumba), the real issue is whether or not these statements were "spontaneous".

Coerced and spontaneous, while closely related, are two separate things.

Uncoerced - "unforced, willing, voluntary - of your own free will or design; done by choice; not forced or compelled."

Spontaneous - "Happening or arising without apparent external cause; self-generated, Arising from a natural inclination or impulse and not from external incitement or constraint."

The "impulse" Mignini wants to trade on is "fear". See below. (Coersion contains no impluse - no inner sense of guilt - to blurt something out.)

Unless there is a major issue of translation here from Italian into English, there's a subtle difference between these two things, as revealed in what Mignini had to say in his CNN May 2011 interview. (I need the Italian speakers to help here - Peggy Ganong's people have translated the import of what Mignini said in the 2nd interrogation as):

"Voglio riferire spontaneamente quello che e successo....." "I wish to relate spontaneously what happened because these events have deeply bothered me and I am really afraid of Patrick....."

This subtle difference? Well, for one thing, I believe Mignini introduced two words into the room after 1:45, and they have to do with Knox's alleged "spontaneous" statements, and have nothing to do with "coerced" statements.

You see, I am becoming to believe that in an Inquisatorial justice system, coercion might be tolerated, because the object of the exercise is to get at the truth.

The issue is the spontaneity of the statements. I believe Mignini introduces this based on his assessment of the inadequacies of the 1st interrogation, the one that produced the 1:45 am memorandum. In the CNN interview, in Mignini's words:

Mignini (CNN Interview): "And thus her interrogation as a person informed of the facts was suspended by the police in compliance with Article 63 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure [c.p.p. - Codice di Procedura Penale], because if evidence appears that incriminates the person, the person being questioned as a person informed of the facts can no longer be heard, and we must stop."[/u] Further: "There must be a defense attorney [present]”.

That was for public consumption. But this was NOT what was worrying Mignini.

There are small things that indicate this agenda of Mignini's.

Note Mignini says in the CNN interview, that he first saw Knox after she'd signed the 1:45 statement. He looked at her, and on the basis of looking at her only (remember, his next claim is that he asked no questions, so how else would he assess Knox's demeanor?):

Mignini: "I went to Amanda who, I remember how she was, what she looked like, I remember her very well, she remained imprinted in my memory, I still remember then two things about Amanda that struck me at the time: first, she looked like she was relieved of a burden and second, she was like, and this is another detail that was impressive, it seemed as if she was terrified of Lumumba."

He further said, "Then I, as I had in some way to, let’s say… this police interrogation had been suspended. At that point I remember that… they made me notice that Amanda, because she wanted to go on talking, I remember she had, like a need to. So I told her: “you can make statements to me; I will not ask questions, since if you make a spontaneous statement and I collect it, I will collect your statement as if I were in fact a notary”. She then repeated [her story] to the interpreter."

"Spontaneous" as a word plays big, because it also makes it into the statement Knox signed after 4 hours (4 hours!) of this patient listening by, dictation taking, only a notary Mignini.

And another thing comes into play here - Mignini needs Knox to "spontaneously" say she's afraid of Lumumba. I am not sure why, perhaps becuase that gives Knox a motive to be so spontaneous? She needs to have an inner urge that needs expressing, and this is where "fear" comes in.

But whether you agree with this or not, it is Mignini, after 1:45 am, who brings "the fear of Patrick" into the room, something that Knox makes no mention of, even if she'd been the author of the 1:45 am statement, rather than just its signatory. "Fear" plays no role there. (Heck, it could have been an accidental killing at that point, no real reason to fear Patrick.)

Here's Knox's trial testimony, about this fear issue. (I believe that at the time, Knox was not aware of the crucial juncture facing police - the juncture between the 2 interrogations, which led to two memorandums. I think she harmonizes them.... but Mignini was fully aware of the problem here....)

When Knox at trial says:

CP (Lumumba's lawyer): In the interrogation of November 6, 2007, at 5:45, you declared that before she died, you heard Meredith scream. How could you know that Meredith screamed before she was killed? Who told you?

AK: So when I was with the police, they asked if I heard Meredith's scream. I said no. They said "But if you were there, how could you not hear her scream? If you were there?" I said "Look, I don't know, maybe I had my ears covered." So they said "Fine, we'll write that down. Fine."

CP: [louder] But I can tell you that on November 6, the police did not know that Meredith screamed before she died, so why would they suggest it to you?

AK: I imagine that maybe they were imagining how it might have been.

The first Memorandum makes no mention of screaming. So no overt reason expressed in the 1st Memorandum really to fear Lumumba. I think Mignini needs to bring "Screams" into the room, so that they can make it into Knox's statement, all to establish:

1) She was afraid of someone who would make a friend scream, ie. it was definitely and knowably not just an accidental death
2) She'd be more than likely to blurt out a spontaneous confession, based on overcoming an urge for fear of the killer, rather than the coersive techniques of the police.

I think that's it. At least I think that's why Mignini needs this to be "spontaenous" and why Mignini needs the "spontaneity" to include a fear of Patrick to make it more plausible that she'd just blurted it out.

All with the lie Mignini says to CNN where he's not asking questions (why? Because he says so? Why does he have to stress this point to CNN? It's not just because he'd not got a lawyer for Knox, it was also because this thing was going to stand or fall on the believability of "spontaneity".) All with lMignini lying about not directing things. He has to lie.

Yet, proof that he was directing things is the very use of the word "spontaneous" in the second memorandum, as well as the new thing, "I am afraid of Patrick." At trial, Knox explain well that she wasn;t afraid of Patrick, and more importantly verifies that this issue came up in the 1:45 - 5:45 period when Mignini admits he was there.

No one says, "I wish to relate spontaneously what happened...." unless you started, "I wish to relate what happened..." and then you get a slap on the back of the head and someone yells, "Spontaneously!" Remember it has to be spontaneous? How many times do we have to tell you!" (Ok, I exaggerate there for effect, but you get the drift.) "Ok, ok, I wish to relate spontaneously what happened...."

The issue is not the coersive nature of the interrogations. Don't get stuck on it. The interrogations stand or fall on the judgment one makes about how spontaneous Knox's statements were, regardless of coersion.

 

[bolint]

And this would point toward what?

I find it strange. They are supposed to "absolutely innocents", they have spent four years in jail and not a single discussion of the case after their release? (Regardless of whether they are in love or are estranged.)

 

[bolint]

What were the trivial reasons?

Naming a fellow perp is rarely a good strategy because it usually backfires.

 

[bolint]

But she did, according to Ficarra's notes:

Dempsey, Candace (2010-04-27). Murder in Italy (p. 142). Berkley.

Thank you for this quote. When was this note made?

If she didn't name him it's because she was afraid he would blame her. If she did name him it's because she was trying to throw him under the bus.

Yes, because its a difficult position for her.
Let the police find him but not directly through you is a reasonable strategy if you are not the chief perp and want to get away with it cleanly.