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

[Grinder]

But you realize then that there is no way for her have to have avoided suspicion in your book, no matter what she did. She names him, guilty. She doesn't name him, guilty. She mentions him by name, guilty. I'd be willing to say that the whole naming of Rudy is inconclusive, except for the fact that when she did try to indicate him to police she didn't even know his name. This is more telling than anything. Had she named him specifically by his first name, rather than a description, how would that have been any worse for her? She was just listing off people who visited the cottage. By not naming him, her vague description went completely unnoticed. What strategy is that? This is actually one of the biggest pieces of evidence favoring innocence that I can see actually. If her goal was to throw suspicion on Rudy, the LEAST she could have done was remember his name as someone who at one time casually visited the cottage and passed that on to ILE. You want to have it too many ways.

I could believe that this was part of her diabolical plan, just describing Rudy while claiming to not know his name, but then what would happen to the PGP theories of panicking? You'd think that when the police hadn't started looking for Rudy by the 4th or 5th she'd of blurted out his name - but no she was the brilliant actress, the evil sorceress, the genius devil, the cool operator - except when she panicked.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

visual inspection of luminol reactions

Halides - isn't it also the case that while Luminol may be more sensitive, in that it can pick up a smaller concentration, it must be interpreted as to how brightly it reacts. Whereas TMB is just a color change when in the presence of blood, Luminol will light up with a fairly large number of substances albeit turnip juice probably wasn't the source.

Grinder,

Some forensic workers claim to be able to tell blood from other substances by the quality of the luminescence. Although I do no claim that there is no merit to this notion whasoever, I am skeptical. For example a review article on luminol noted the drawbacks of doing so: "An experienced practitioner may distinguish the true blood-catalyzed chemiluminescence from that produced by other substances by the evaluation of parameters observable to the naked eye such as emission intensity, duration and spatial distribution. However this approach may also lead to misinterpretation, due to a subjective, informal and non quantitative evaluation, for example, because its intensity is qualitatively much weaker than that expected for blood. In other circumstances an emission of similar intensity may be thought to derive from diluted bloodstains and is accepted. Therefore, caution should be exercised when using the test. Any confusion which may arise over a stain can usually be resolved by an intelligent observation and, if necessary, by further testing... [73]" I agree that luminol is very sensitive, and I also agree that there are a number of interfering substances, such as rust.

 

[anglolawyer]

There's been a lot of talk about when Amanda was suspected, when was Lumumba suspected, why was Romanelli not suspected etc. I've made some notes from Follain's book. Now one can have an opinion on how valid his reporting is; he may have a PGP bias but it's also possible that what he reports is what people told him, which is a guide to what was being thought at the time.

Nice work freeski. This is actually what Follain's book is for. Subject to reliability, it's the cops' version of events and very useful for that reason.

 

[anglolawyer]

'Mignini goes to sleep at 10.30 pm. Woken at 11pm --> goes to questura --> tells wife this will be a long night --> finds lots of detectives there despite late hour. [freeski notes: because he ordered them to be there!!]'

Picked this out from freeski's (excellent) chronology. Follain does not mention sources in the book but, when I read it, I assumed his source for stuff concerning Mig was the man hisself. So he was there all night ...

 

[Grinder]

'Mignini goes to sleep at 10.30 pm. Woken at 11pm --> goes to questura --> tells wife this will be a long night --> finds lots of detectives there despite late hour. [freeski notes: because he ordered them to be there!!]'

Picked this out from freeski's (excellent) chronology. Follain does not mention sources in the book but, when I read it, I assumed his source for stuff concerning Mig was the man hisself. So he was there all night ...

I can't find any source at this moment but I thought the story always was that Mignini was asleep and awakened after Amanda had buckled and then went to the station or to that part of the station.

 

[Grinder]

Grinder,

Some forensic workers claim to be able to tell blood from other substances by the quality of the luminescence. Although I do no claim that there is no merit to this notion whasoever, I am skeptical. For example a review article on luminol noted the drawbacks of doing so: "An experienced practitioner may distinguish the true blood-catalyzed chemiluminescence from that produced by other substances by the evaluation of parameters observable to the naked eye such as emission intensity, duration and spatial distribution. However this approach may also lead to misinterpretation, due to a subjective, informal and non quantitative evaluation, for example, because its intensity is qualitatively much weaker than that expected for blood. In other circumstances an emission of similar intensity may be thought to derive from diluted bloodstains and is accepted. Therefore, caution should be exercised when using the test. Any confusion which may arise over a stain can usually be resolved by an intelligent observation and, if necessary, by further testing... [73]" I agree that luminol is very sensitive, and I also agree that there are a number of interfering substances, such as rust.

Thanks for the response. To sum up, Luminol is a judgment call and TMB either changes color or not. If a sample lights up after Luminol is applied it could be blood, while if TMB doesn't change color it's not blood.

 

[bri1]

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.

Hi Bill,
I just wanted to jump in, because I just wanted to clarify some points you raise.
Re: Amanda's 1.45 and 5.45 statements. You're right, sponteneity is at issue. If the statements were not spontaneous and instead arose via interrogation, then they are inadmissable, because Amanda should have been provided with a lawyer. If the defence could show that they were not spontaneous, then the calunnia conviction is presumably not sound, and the Supreme Court would (hopefully) rule appropriately.
However, coercion is also at issue in these statements. Free will is a basic requirement of all responsible action, and therefore if Amanda is to be held responsible for these statements, then they have to be uncoerced. It's a deeper issue than sponteneity, really, connected with the concept of mens rea- a coerced mind isn't free, and therefore can't be a guilty mind. If the defense could show that Amanda was coerced that night, then the statements automatically would show that the statements were not sponteneous (as sponteneity is a much weaker requirement. A statement could not be spontaneous, yet coerced, but could be uncoerced yet not spontaneous- e.g. a genuinely friendly chat, listen we have evidence pointing to Lumumba but not enough to take to court, so if you have any info that might help, please let us know. This would be illicited, not spontaneous, but not necessarily coerced).
The defence, in my view, should present the masses of evidence that Amanda was coerced by the police that night. Sponteneity would necessarily be disproved in this process.

 

[anglolawyer]

Hi Bill,
I just wanted to jump in, because I just wanted to clarify some points you raise.
Re: Amanda's 1.45 and 5.45 statements. You're right, sponteneity is at issue. If the statements were not spontaneous and instead arose via interrogation, then they are inadmissable, because Amanda should have been provided with a lawyer. If the defence could show that they were not spontaneous, then the calunnia conviction is presumably not sound, and the Supreme Court would (hopefully) rule appropriately.
However, coercion is also at issue in these statements. Free will is a basic requirement of all responsible action, and therefore if Amanda is to be held responsible for these statements, then they have to be uncoerced. It's a deeper issue than sponteneity, really, connected with the concept of mens rea- a coerced mind isn't free, and therefore can't be a guilty mind. If the defense could show that Amanda was coerced that night, then the statements automatically would show that the statements were not sponteneous (as sponteneity is a much weaker requirement. A statement could not be spontaneous, yet coerced, but could be uncoerced yet not spontaneous- e.g. a genuinely friendly chat, listen we have evidence pointing to Lumumba but not enough to take to court, so if you have any info that might help, please let us know. This would be illicited, not spontaneous, but not necessarily coerced).
The defence, in my view, should present the masses of evidence that Amanda was coerced by the police that night. Sponteneity would necessarily be disproved in this process.

Below is the relevant extract from Amanda's 1st appeal as translated (and summarised?) at IIP. I have highlighted some of it to show the basis of the appeal:

'The Slander against Patrick

Amanda was also convicted of the crime of libel under Article 368 c.p.p. against Patrick Lumumba. The defense argues that the mental element of intent is lacking, therefore the charge of libel is not warranted.

The defense repeats the fact that this trial running concurrently with the murder trial made it necessary to discuss the signed statement that was ruled inadmissible by the Italian Supreme Court. This statement should not have been allowed in any form at any time during the murder trial. The court ignored the Italian Supreme Court’s ruling regarding this statement.

Amanda’s written document describing her interrogation shows an act of desperation of a girl that was distressed. Amanda did not know her constitutional rights in Italy. She did not make a free decision and yet the defense had no choice but to refer to the document because of the charge of libel. Amanda was only trying to help the authorities in their search for truth. A complete reading of the document indicates the absolute uncertainty and improbability of the facts mentioned previously by Amanda. She says several times she doubts it is reality and thinks it is a dream. The doubts, hesitation and anxiety are evident throughout the document. This shows then the lack of the mental element of intent to award the specific offense against her. The specific details of the accused of a violation of a crime by the accused are essential for slander. This particular document appears as an elaboration of a fantastic experience and repudiated reality.

There is a lack of explicit intent when Amanda says:

“I have serious doubts about the truth of my statements because they were made under the pressure of stress, shock and because I was exhausted.”

She was threatened with 30 years in prison and struck on the head when she did not recall events correctly. Amanda states repeatedly, even to her mother in an intercepted conversation of her awareness of her innocence. The intent to slander is missing because she is not convinced of the guilt or innocence of the person she accuses. Amanda had no way of knowing that Patrick was innocent. The police were telling her that Patrick was involved. To be guilty of slander one must have certainty and full knowledge of the innocence of the person accused. Amanda was not trying to slander Patrick. She was attempting to help the police and was following their guidance. It was the responsibility of the investigators to determine Patrick’s guilt or innocence.'

Rejecting the appeal, Hellman-Zanetti ruled (my emphasis again):

'this Court does not find that there is any significant objective evidence that, when she made her spontaneous statements and wrote her note, Amanda Knox was in not only a situation of considerable psychological pressure and stress but also even in a condition of not intending or wishing; so that, having accused of such a serious crime a person whom she knew to be innocent, she must in any case be held responsible for the crime of calumny, the constitution of which does not require any specific purpose from a psychological point of view, such as shifting the blame off of oneself [conseguire la propria impunità] (an aggravating circumstance alleged [here]). Generic criminal intent [il dolo generico] is sufficient, thus including the aim of escaping from a particularly oppressive personal situation.

 

[Bill Williams]

Hi Bill,
I just wanted to jump in, because I just wanted to clarify some points you raise.
Re: Amanda's 1.45 and 5.45 statements. You're right, sponteneity is at issue. If the statements were not spontaneous and instead arose via interrogation, then they are inadmissable, because Amanda should have been provided with a lawyer. If the defence could show that they were not spontaneous, then the calunnia conviction is presumably not sound, and the Supreme Court would (hopefully) rule appropriately.
However, coercion is also at issue in these statements. Free will is a basic requirement of all responsible action, and therefore if Amanda is to be held responsible for these statements, then they have to be uncoerced. It's a deeper issue than sponteneity, really, connected with the concept of mens rea- a coerced mind isn't free, and therefore can't be a guilty mind. If the defense could show that Amanda was coerced that night, then the statements automatically would show that the statements were not sponteneous (as sponteneity is a much weaker requirement. A statement could not be spontaneous, yet coerced, but could be uncoerced yet not spontaneous- e.g. a genuinely friendly chat, listen we have evidence pointing to Lumumba but not enough to take to court, so if you have any info that might help, please let us know. This would be illicited, not spontaneous, but not necessarily coerced).
The defence, in my view, should present the masses of evidence that Amanda was coerced by the police that night. Sponteneity would necessarily be disproved in this process.

Thanks for your comments, Bri.

I am not sure I am directly speaking to the calunnia, or the possible defense of no mens rea.

I am not that far yet.

I am still dealing with Mignini's agenda, which he brought into the room after the 1:45 am declaration. In a sense, you've understood exactly what I'm dealing with and how Mignini's mind at 1:45 am is to be interpreted. He knows full well (hopefully) the cautions you raise above - he is desparate to somehow get Knox to say she fears Lumumba, and to say it spontaneously - I mean, it's his agenda not hers, because he is the one who needs to wrap this up in the proper legal framework.

Just how does one coerce someone else to be spontaneous?

So he walks in the room, specifically says he's not asking her questions, specifically says that he notices (non-verbally, ie. neither Knox nor anyone else had told him) that Knox had had a giant weight lifted from her as a result of her 1:45 am admissions, as well as he noticed she feared Lumumba.

How one makes that second thing as such a specific "observation" I do not know, I mean, did she break out in an Exorcist-like rash on her forehead that printed out, "I fear Lumumba!"? How can a gut feeling be that specific if Mignini is simply walking fresh into the room as he claimed?

So, Mignini tries to walk between the raindrops of the storm you so accurately describe. He knows damn well she needs a lawyer, and knows damn well this should be recorded.

Incredibly, he throws the blame back onto Knox. He says, "She needed to talk." So, he further says, "I acted as if a notary. That's why she did not need a lawyer"

In all of this Mignini himself is trying to build the framework of a non-coerced, purely spontaneous "confession", which needs no lawyer and needs no transcript or video.

So I am not as far down the road as you are, in terms of that this means towards calunnia. Mignini paints himself in this narrative as only a priest would who is simply taking confession - note how he says she looked to him as if a giant weight had been lifted from her as a result of the 1:45 am thing. Confession is good for the soul.

Do I believe Mignini in this narrative he paints? Not for a minute. This is the very beginning of the lies police and Mignini told, and shamelessly leaked to the police in the days to come - including her diary with sex partners, etc. etc.

Even some of the tabloids who would lead with some lurid "Foxy Knoxy" headlines, would bury in the story some statement about how shameful all these leaks really were.

It is also interesting to see what even the tabloids were saying when 2007 turned into 2008, and 2008 turned into 2009. Even they were becoming tired that there really was no new lurid stuff coming out. I wish I could find the tabloid piece that (after the obligatory lurid headline) said, what amounts to: "here it is a year later, and we're no closer to discovering what really happened to Meredith Kercher."

I think Mignini rolled the dice when he went into the interrogation room at 1:45 am - he knew he had to somehow get Knox to say something about fearing Lumumba, and she had to be seen to be saying it "spontaneously".

This is my way of saying that following the "spontaneity" part of this narrative is far more productive than following the "coerced confession" part of it.

In that sense, as noted on other boards, an interrogation of a suspect is ALWAYS about coercing them to confess, or else why did the police drag them in as a suspect?

In that sense, the tactics used against Knox were classic. They first played off Sollecito against her, then deliberately misinterpreted the SMS text message - all to do what all coersive interrogatives do.....

.... get someone to say what they do not want to say. The "free will" part of it comes when the police have simply painted the suspect into a corner, and the suspect can do no other than confess. Presumably of "free will" because there is no other rhetorical back-door for the suspect.

I just think that concentrating on coersion in the Knox interrogation misses completely the import of the agenda Mignini brings into the room at 1:45 am.

 

[freeski]

Thanks for the whole list - hoping you just had to cut and paste

A couple of things: Do you have the entire arrest warrant?

Where did the "three inch knife matching the wound" phrase come from? All the early reports had it as a penknife, a jackknife, a chard of glass or even a screwdriver, which made it so very strange that they then claimed the murder weapon was the large kitchen knife.

Does he go into Lumumba's arrest and an explanation of why his interrogation wasn't recorded?

Alas, I've looked for the arrest warrant and haven't found it yet. It was one of the first things I tried to do. If anyone knows a link please share. There's nothing about Lumumba's arrest.

See below for the reference to the jackknife (I should have said jackknife in my list). Alas poor Raffaele, he was so naive to carry a knife to the questura. The quote below from Follain tells you exactly when the railroad job from hell started. The key quote is in bold. He had no evidence, but had forced false confessions out of them so he could detain them - without lawyers (how can any system allow that). That gave him all time needed to get/construct/manufacture the evidence required. It's truly shocking.

I could go on forever about this, but one thing comes to mind related to below. Two pieces of "evidence" against Raffaele: jackknife and shoe print. Jackknife not matched by forensics; shoe print proved to be Guede's by Raffaele's family around mid December; so they have to get more on Raffaele. On Dec 18 they go get some more "evidence": the bra clasp. It's like an EU referendum: you will keep voting till you give us the correct answer. It's truly shocking.

From page 137/138 (32%, location 2210) it says (talking about morning of the 6th Nov):

"That morning, Mignini made up his mind. He decided to arrest all three suspects, worried they would otherwise flee or tamper with the evidence. Mignini was confident that Amanda’s account was more than enough to enable him to take her in. The law required serious circumstantial evidence to hold a suspect in preventive custody - proof of guilt was not necessary. He had no proof as yet but the collapse of an alibi was seen as serious evidence of guilt, and this in his eyes applied to both Amanda and Raffaele. The prosecutor was worried that Amanda might flee abroad; her mother Edda was on her way to Perugia and there was nothing to stop her taking her daughter straight back to America on the first flight home. As for Raffaele, his family was wealthy and might well decide to suddenly spirit him away to Australia for all Mignini knew.

He consulted his superior — Perugia’s chief prosecutor — who gave him the green light, then started work on drafting the three arrest warrants and drawing up a concise list of the grounds for their arrests. There were the contradictions in Amanda’s statements and her accusation against Patrick; Raffaele’s surprise retraction of the alibi he had given Amanda in saying he had spent the whole night with her; and the fact that Amanda and Raffaele’s mobile phones had become inactive at virtually the same time in the evening. The prosecutor also listed Patrick’s text message to Amanda and her reply. Two pieces of evidence the investigators had found could incriminate Raffaele. One was a shoe print, size 42.5 (size 9 in the UK), discovered under the quilt which covered Meredith’s body and which the local forensic police said could have been left by a pair of Nike Air Force 1 shoes similar to the ones owned by Raffaele. The other was a jackknife with a blade just over three inches long and almost an inch wide, which detectives had found in his pocket that morning, and which Mignini wrote could have caused Meredith’s fatal wound. Amanda, he concluded in the warrant, had 'demonstrated herself particularly unscrupulous in lying repeatedly to investigators and in involving the young [Raflaele] Sollecito in such a serious affair.' He accused Patrick, Amanda and Raffaele of aggravated murder and aggravated sexual violence, and ordered them to be held in isolation without access to lawyers. The crime of sexual violence carried a sentence of five to ten years; that of aggravated murder, a maximum sentence of life in jail."​

 

[Grinder]

If the statements were not spontaneous and instead arose via interrogation, then they are inadmissable, because Amanda should have been provided with a lawyer.

I don't believe this is true. My understanding is that a subject of questioning is not required to have a lawyer (at least offered) until they have been designated as a suspect. The statement made by Amanda couldn't be used against her in the trial for murder (as ruled by the Corte Suprema di Cassazione) because it was given while she was considered a type of witness. Once she implicated herself they were required to stop the session but had her sign her "spontaneous" statement which is allowed in the calunnia trial.

It's obvious from what the chief said at the time that she was led to her "spontaneous" statement. I don't think that it needs to proven that there was significant coercion for the defense to win the point that she was manipulated into the accusation and that she would never have named Patrick had the police not said they had proof.

Her notes prove that she was "forced" into the statement as she couldn't know the interrogation wasn't recorded - had she lied about being yelled at and cuffed that would have come out on the recording.

Still am waiting for anybody, perhaps PG, that can explain why Patrick's interrogation after his being picked up (arrested) as a suspect wasn't recorded.

 

[Grinder]

Barbie wrote:

In the 40-page appellate document obtained by The Daily Beast, Knox’s lawyers argue that the false accusation was the product of “intense pressure” that bordered on “abuse” against the young American. That pressure, they say, caused her to inadvertently accuse Lumumba of the crime. Her incarceration and subsequent trauma then prohibited her from self-correcting her error, according to the document, hence Lumumba's two weeks in jail. For these reasons, Knox’s lawyers believe the slander conviction should also be overturned.

Notice that the lawyers can't say "abuse" they say "bordered on abuse". It seems so clear that the Italian system is severely biased towards the prosecution.

And

Shortly after her release last fall, Knox escaped into the Seattle underbelly, with sporadic paparazzi montages capturing her freedom holding hands with her new live-in grunge boyfriend and engaging in the somewhat mundane activities of daily life. News that her family hired top literary agent Robert Barnett gave way to conflicting reports from family insiders that Knox refused to sell her story, potentially negating a multimillion-dollar windfall and instigating an internal family feud. But even interest in that debacle has waned.

What is her problem? "Escaped into the Seattle underbelly" what the hell does that mean? She was found not guilty and went home. She moved into an apartment in the International District (formerly called Chinatown) that is reported to be above median ($1400) in cost. The I.D. is not the underbelly of Seattle to extent we have one. Actually West Seattle is closer to White Center (Rat City) which might be called the underbelly. I guess in comparison to Barbie's South Dakota background Seattle might have an underbelly but in the greater sense, not so much.

Except for a couple of sites there really hasn't been any talk about the book and movie deal. How in the world would Barbie know what is going on in Seattle anyway?

 

[smkovalinksy]

Probably already posted, but interesting piece in its POV:

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981086492

 

[PhantomWolf]

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

What you really mean is someone that agrees with you. Other people 'get it', they just don't agree with you.

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.

Except that the evidence against Amanda was far more than just cartwheels and tongue sticking out. Lets look at the list the freeski provided.

• Filomena talked a lot to police at cottage and indicated Amanda’s story made no sense.
• Sophie first interview on 2nd asked if Meredith knew any black men.
• People who thought Amanda’s behaviour odd on first day: Filomena, Napoleoni, Mignini, Sophie, Laura, Amy, Natalie.
• Night of 2nd Amanda & Raffaele spend night at questura; English friends sent home.
• Probably Filomena and Marco held as well. All went home at 6am.
• Mignini stays with insider job thesis. Inclined to rule out Filomena.
• Asked cops to keep tabs on Amanda and boys downstairs, including phone taps.
• Amanda relative mentions to Edda police are talking a lot to Amanda.
• Sophie’s father comments to Sophie that Amanda is involved.
• Amanda sends email to all friends --> sent to Seattle cops --> sent to Perugian police.
• Napoleoni views Raffaelle clinging to Amanda as odd --> bugs room they talk in at 4.30pm.
• Cops asked about M’s sex life. Yelled at Amanda. Police stressing her out. Trying to make her say something.
• At night fall with Mignini they look for missing knives --> Amanda breaks down. First time Mignini and Napoleoni have seen Amanda cry.
• Laura and Filomena later identify clothes in washing machine as Meredith’s with some of Amanda’s.
• Napoleoni established Shaky had nothing to do with murder --> suspected Amanda had tried to implicate him with stories (see above).
• Napoleoni eliminates 4 boys downstairs as suspects.
• Amanda bumps into Lumumba at lunchtime --> hugs Lumumba.
• Napoleoni decides to question Raffaele again because his account confusing.
• Cops aware A&R mobile phones had become inactive on night or murder --> Amanda’s from 8.35 to midday, Raffaele’s from 8.42 to 6.02am --> records show both usually left mobiles on at night.

So from day one, a lot of people thought Amanda was acting strangely, and mentioned it. Mignini had dropped Filomena as a suspect on Day 2, and the boys downstairs had been ruled out on Day 3. They were looking for a Black man from day one, and got one with Amanda on the 5th. It's also clear that the Police had Raffaele and Amanda's phone records prior to the interrogation and had already tried to get something from her the previous day, and failed.

By the time of the interrogaration, not only do they have many people saying Amanda and Raffaele's stories don't add up and that they are acting stranglely, but they have her washing mixed with Meredith's, her and Raffaele at the scene (and who knows if the belief in the mop and the warm/going washing machine had already started), her claim to have showered and not noticed the blood, the phone records showing the phones turned off (and if they had they they had the text exchanges with Lumumba too and I bet his records showing his phone near the cottage, something that they questioned him about in his interrogation on the morning of the 6th.) They were already looking for a black man on the first day, and now they had Amanda, their main suspect (they had already ruled out the boys and Mignini had only ordered watched on the boys and Amanda,) meeting with a black man whom she'd exchanged text messages with right before the murder.

How does this compare to Filomena's taking her laptop, quite possibly with permission of the officer there at the time?

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..."

The only "key-holder" they had followed was Amanda.

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.

Not from the evidence that freeski has posted. I;d say it was closer to 60% Amanda, 15% someone that they hadn't thought of, 10% someone Meredith meet, 5% one of the others, including Filomena and the boys downstairs.

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!

Except the list Freeski gives pretty clearly shows that they were focused on Knox, that out of all the group, she was the most likely target.

 

[Bill Williams]

Amanda, he concluded in the warrant, had 'demonstrated herself particularly unscrupulous in lying repeatedly to investigators and in involving the young [Raflaele] Sollecito in such a serious affair.' He accused Patrick, Amanda and Raffaele of aggravated murder and aggravated sexual violence, and ordered them to be held in isolation without access to lawyers. The crime of sexual violence carried a sentence of five to ten years; that of aggravated murder, a maximum sentence of life in jail."[/INDENT]

Thanks FreeSki for posting this.

I never realized this before, but when Mignini says that "Amanda lied repeatedly to investigators," every seems to be assuming that this refers to alleged multiple, and ever changing lies.

I think at this point even Mignini is refering to what is otherwise a single "lie" from her point of view, ie. that she'd been at Raffaele's the night of the murder. That she'd said this one ting "repeatedly" to investigators, for some reason make Mignini think she's an "unscrupulous liar".

This then developed in the medi to the myth that Knox was always inventing different stories and claiming multiple alibis, depending one who was accusing her of what.

The truth is different.

All she ever had were two stories.

1) that she'd been at Raffaele's, the one she repeated over and over again to investigators from Nov 2 to 5th. That she repeated this single story, seems to Mignini to indicat a particularly unscrupulous liar(!).

2) That Lumumba had been involved.

3) Repeat of story #1 for the next four years until acquital.

That's why I have never understood the PGP position that "Knox kept telling lies and kept changing her story."

I have asked individual PGP to list the "various stories" and the "various lies" and have yet to find a willing taker.

Harry Rag published such a list some years ago, and the thing that strikes me about tRag's list, is that of the 13 listed, 11 of them are lies he attributes to Sollecito, not to Knox. The two he attributes to Knox are one that are precisely the dispute - meaning, one he lists is "the lie Knox told about Lumumba's involvement."

Isn't that exactly what the dispute is!? She was maneuvred by police to somewhat confusedly remember that Lumumba might have been there....

 

[katy_did]

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.

You make a very good point, and actually I think this is the single strongest reason the police had to be suspicious of Knox - very much stronger than the fact she had a key, which is weak (it's being said that the police were focusing on key-holders, but thinking about it I'm not quite sure why this would be the case: their early theories would more likely have had Meredith letting the person in herself).

As I said earlier, I think a lot of the apparent suspicions the police had about Knox are being magnified by us (and them) in hindsight, and combined with a lot of supposition: for instance, the theory that the police were trailing Knox and saw her hugging Patrick, and from this and the simple knowledge they'd exchanged a text message (without knowing the content) jumped to the conclusion they were both involved in the murder. I find that sequence pretty improbable, and in fact I doubt Patrick's name seriously entered the equation until they found that text message.

The problem with disentangling the actual level of suspicion the police had about Knox and the narrative we're creating in hindsight is that, on the one hand, we simply don't know what other leads the police were following - the only indication we have is from random snippets of testimony like Hicham Khiri's. Surely it's pretty likely he wasn't the only one? And on the other hand, we know every detail about every tiny little suspicion the police had about Knox (and again, nothing about the many suspicions they doubtless had about many other people). Naturally they all wanted in on the glory after the fact: "I knew it! I could just tell she was guilty from the way she ate that pizza!" That doesn't mean to say they saw those trivialities as indications of guilt at the time.

And it isn't only the police: did Meredith's friends really find Amanda's behaviour as suspicious as they later claimed? Frank commented at the time they gave their testimony that their statements were so similar it was almost as if they'd rehearsed them (probably not his exact words, my paraphrase!). The English girls all had plenty of chance to speak to each other about Amanda after she'd been arrested ("and did you see the way she was kissing Raffaele?" "Well now you mention it...!"). They all believed her to be guilty. Isn't it quite likely that this belief in her guilt, as well as their discussion of that morning in the Questura and the mutual reinforcing/magnifying of their various memories might have led them - in hindsight - to represent Amanda's behaviour as way more suspicious than they actually thought it at the time?

But this isn't an all or nothing question, of course: it's not as if the police were either not suspicious of Amanda at all, or convinced she and Patrick were the culprits. I'm certainly prepared to accept they may have had suspicions about her and thought she could be hiding something, most likely covering for someone. Perhaps they did think her behaviour was slightly odd (but come on, Antonio "I'm a heroin-fuelled Jesus Christ" Curatolo was presented in this case as a very credible witness. I doubt the police thought her behaviour was any odder than his). But while this might have been enough for them to want to question her further, as indeed they did, it isn't enough for them to have come up with a fully-formed theory in which Patrick and Amanda murdered Meredith, and they just had to get Amanda to admit it by pretending to misinterpret one of her text messages. I don't think they suspected Patrick at all before that night: if they had, they'd have checked out his alibi, bugged his phone and - above all - hauled him in for some intensive questioning. As far as we know, they did none of these things.

Again, the temptation is to see every little thing as significant, to believe the police's version of what happened, and to create a coherent narrative which ends with Amanda, Raffaele and Patrick being arrested (and not only is Follain not immune to this tendency, as an author it's his job to create a coherent narrative from the whole!). I just think it's likely to have been a whole lot messier than the police claim in hindsight: the way they acted that night and the manic behaviour afterwards (e.g. with Patrick) doesn't speak of a clear and considered theory to me, it looks more like a group of people rapidly jumping to the wrong conclusions and giving themselves no time to step back and think rationally about what they were doing.

 

[freeski]

Thanks FreeSki for posting this.

I never realized this before, but when Mignini says that "Amanda lied repeatedly to investigators," every seems to be assuming that this refers to alleged multiple, and ever changing lies.

I think at this point even Mignini is refering to what is otherwise a single "lie" from her point of view, ie. that she'd been at Raffaele's the night of the murder. That she'd said this one ting "repeatedly" to investigators, for some reason make Mignini think she's an "unscrupulous liar".

This then developed in the medi to the myth that Knox was always inventing different stories and claiming multiple alibis, depending one who was accusing her of what.

The truth is different.

All she ever had were two stories.

1) that she'd been at Raffaele's, the one she repeated over and over again to investigators from Nov 2 to 5th. That she repeated this single story, seems to Mignini to indicat a particularly unscrupulous liar(!).

2) That Lumumba had been involved.

3) Repeat of story #1 for the next four years until acquital.

That's why I have never understood the PGP position that "Knox kept telling lies and kept changing her story."

I have asked individual PGP to list the "various stories" and the "various lies" and have yet to find a willing taker.

Harry Rag published such a list some years ago, and the thing that strikes me about tRag's list, is that of the 13 listed, 11 of them are lies he attributes to Sollecito, not to Knox. The two he attributes to Knox are one that are precisely the dispute - meaning, one he lists is "the lie Knox told about Lumumba's involvement."

Isn't that exactly what the dispute is!? She was maneuvred by police to somewhat confusedly remember that Lumumba might have been there....

Bill, first let me say that your postings are very thought provoking and get the rest of us to knuckle down and do some real research and thinking.

I think the above is that Mignini had decided on the "truth" from day 1 and that in all the interviews from Nov 2 to Nov 5 Amanda kept "lying" in all the interviews she had over those days and nights. So when he says she "repeatedly lied and was unscrupulous etc", he is referring to all those interviews. Let's face it, if she was guilty then indeed everything she said in the interviews of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th would indeed be repeated lies.

You got me started on this line of research for two conjectures:
1. Filomena was as much under suspicion as Amanda.
2. Lumumba was a surprise on night of 5/6.

Without wishing to rehash everything - but I'll rehash anyway I think (1) is not correct. I think Amanda was the one more or less from the get-go.

I think you made a very good point on (2). Like your original postings at IIP shining a light on the first four days, it concentrated my mind. I think Lumumba did turn up later. e.g. they were trying get at Hicham Khiri for several days, but I presume fortunately he had a good alibi. And if Lumumba had been considered earlier then he would have been interviewed and been eliminated because of his alibi. But no one had mentioned him, so he wasn't visible. It was stated elsewhere, for example, that the students didn't really go to Lumumba's bar. It was often empty. They went to the Merlin Pub. I think he hired Amanda hoping to attract more students.

However, he came seriously into view on the morning of the 5th. They were all out of black guys to accuse (and part of the main theory was that a black guy was involved - from the garage CCTV perhaps, though I don't rule out blatant racism). But at that point I think they felt they were running out of time and decided to put the screws on the lovebirds. I think they had him in mind, and when they saw the text message used that as a device to ensnare Amanda into accusing him. In that sense you are correct. He hadn't been on their radar for very long and when she went along with their coaxing, they were surprised and thrilled. They were "right" all along about Amanda and a black guy.

But somehow I feel Mignini was mainly after Amanda. She fascinated him from the start. She was the epitome of a witch for him. Beautiful but deadly. I think this must feed into some weird idea he has of women. Such a free spirit must have been like a red rag to a bull. What a bovine, ignorant man.

 

[Bill Williams]

What you really mean is someone that agrees with you. Other people 'get it', they just don't agree with you.

I'll take it any way I can get it! I'm surprised anyone responds to my musings!

I tend to agree with Katy_Did, and appreciate yours and FreeSkis comments a lot. Grinder too.

I know I am asking you to prove a negative here - the PGP people are great at that too - but I feel (I think it was Katy_Did who said it best) that the problem is that we're all looking at this from post Nov 5/6 eyes. That is, the whole record of this is simply swamped with all the stuff generated since then about Knox and Sollecito.

Reconstructing the record about anyone else in the Nov 2-5 period is probably fruitless, although FreeSki and other sgave it a good go.

Even if Filomena had been as much of a suspect as Knox from the start - and not really a suspect, but a person of interest because of the key-meme - that has more than likely been forever lost in the tsunami that hit Knox, like flotsam and jetsam carried out to sea.

I don't plan on saying too much more (yea right), but with you folks and Grinder and all, it has been a good exchange.

About a month ago I was intrigued with what could have possibily gone wrong so much so that police (or Mignini) could have even mistaken Knox for a suspect. From this vantage point four years later, and speaking as someone who only came to this case in the summer of 2011 (I am slow!)....

..... it is positively the biggest headscratcher I can conceive that anyone mistook either Knox or Sollecito as anything more than a person of interest. Strangely, and I am not trying to be mean to them, they aren't even THAT interesting as people. Sorry, I feel that way. They are very, very typical 20-somethings these days.

And even if you want to claim some sort of perfect storm aligned against them.... that led them to be chaerged..... by the time Guede came on the scene on the 19th of Nov, there is absolutely no need, other than police ego, for Knox or (even less for) Sollecito to continue in the Kercher murder narrative.

It is the height of police incompetence - and they even admited it by sending the Socentific Police back to the scene 47 days later to get something, get ANYTHING, and then the police forensics people had to literally INVENT A NEW WAY OF DOING FORENSICS to even get some sort of shadowy-echo of "something" that if you squint and hold your mouth funny, you'll see Raffaele on the bra-clasp and Knox in mixed-blood that is not mixed blood in the bathroom, that Knox and Kercher friggin' shared to begin with!

That was the evidence!?!?!?!?

I've come to my own opinions about that crucial Nov 2-5 period as a result of the back and forth - I could be wrong...... but I will say this:

It makes it seem even weirder from this vantage point as a later-comer to this case, that Knox was even remotely interesting as a person for those pursuing justice for Meredith Kercher. Knox had had a mountain of garbage dumped on her, which does not make her interesting per se....

It's what was done to what amounts to a random Seattleite that is the only "interesting" thing in a bizarre sort of way.

I still do not understand why the continual vilification of Knox is seen as justified, esp. justified to "perserve Meredith's memory". One of the Kercher's said it best, while somewhat agnostic about Knox's involvement, the family member said he certainly did not want innocent people to be held account.

That others do is the weirdest part.

Did anyone read Barbie Latza Nadeau's piece in The Daily Beast about Knox appealing the calunnia conviction?

Nadeau said the appeal was the result of Knox wanting to remain in the public eye.... "Does Amanda Knox miss the limelight? It would appear so, as she is back in the news now that her Italian lawyers have filed an appeal ..... "

What an absolutely scuzzy remark. Slimey yellow journalism at its best. Nadeau's mum must be proud. I wish Nadeau would charge me with calunnia for saying so, because I would love to take this into a courtroom, just for the satisfaction of putting ALL of Nadeau's stuff onto the record.

She's about the only person in the world who can make me feel sorry for that Italian cruise ship captain. And that's saying something.

As a late comer, I can't believe this is even being typed about in Feb 2012. It should have ended with Guede, and shouldn't have even got that far.

 

[Grinder]

However, he came seriously into view on the morning of the 5th. They were all out of black guys to accuse (and part of the main theory was that a black guy was involved - from the garage CCTV perhaps, though I don't rule out blatant racism). But at that point I think they felt they were running out of time and decided to put the screws on the lovebirds. I think they had him in mind, and when they saw the text message used that as a device to ensnare Amanda into accusing him. In that sense you are correct. He hadn't been on their radar for very long and when she went along with their coaxing, they were surprised and thrilled. They were "right" all along about Amanda and a black guy.

But somehow I feel Mignini was mainly after Amanda. She fascinated him from the start. She was the epitome of a witch for him. Beautiful but deadly. I think this must feed into some weird idea he has of women. Such a free spirit must have been like a red rag to a bull. What a bovine, ignorant man.

To me the crucial question is what they thought they knew just before the interrogation of the 5th. Amanda was clearly a main focus from the very first and Patrick was not. But on that fateful night the police had the video of the black man, they had the connection to at least Amanda and likely Meredith as she had been offered the one-night Mojito job and they had the text message. Amanda had to have told them she worked at Le Chic and the police knew Patrick, a black man, owned it.

They knew what was correct and forced her to voice it. What they thought the morning of the 5th really doesn't mean much - it was what they thought as they questioned her hard enough to make her buckle.

I think Mignini became convinced later of Amanda's witchiness.

 

[bri1]

Did anyone read Barbie Latza Nadeau's piece in The Daily Beast about Knox appealing the calunnia conviction?

Nadeau said the appeal was the result of Knox wanting to remain in the public eye.... "Does Amanda Knox miss the limelight? It would appear so, as she is back in the news now that her Italian lawyers have filed an appeal ..... "

What an absolutely scuzzy remark. Slimey yellow journalism at its best. Nadeau's mum must be proud. I wish Nadeau would charge me with calunnia for saying so, because I would love to take this into a courtroom, just for the satisfaction of putting ALL of Nadeau's stuff onto the record.

She's about the only person in the world who can make me feel sorry for that Italian cruise ship captain. And that's saying something.

As a late comer, I can't believe this is even being typed about in Feb 2012. It should have ended with Guede, and shouldn't have even got that far.

Nadeau has yet again proved herself to be a hatemonger. This remark and the 'underbelly' one are inexcusable, and writing this kind of trash is a shameful way to earn a living.