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

[Bob001]

.... US juries definitely believe that, which is why Billy Wayne Cope is in prison even though he is obviously innocent and the physical evidence all points to someone he didn't know......

I had never heard of this case, but a quick search turns up accounts that seem to indicate pretty clearly that this guy was browbeaten into a false confession without a lawyer for killing his daughter while two other daughters were asleep in their house, and convicted even after DNA from a known break-in artist was found at the scene:
http://www.wcnc.com/news/local/Innocent-behind-bars-93143179.html
http://www.billywaynecope.net/index.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38060491/ns/dateline_nbc-crime_reports/t/mystery-rock-hill/

Perhaps not surprisingly, the prosecutor's office (or someone connected with it) has created a web site contending that he's guilty.
http://www.billywaynecope.com/

So does this guy have any chance of getting out of prison? Or at least getting a new trial?

 

[Machiavelli]

From Amanda's testimony:

The little problem is that Knox's testimony takes place two years later, questioned by her friendly lawyers, and still is vague, contradictory, changing and elusive. When I mean "claim" I mean a position expressed at a close time to the fact, like the hand written note, or like her December 17. interrogation. Even in her statement at the preliminary hearing she lacked any factual claim.
In fact, even in her testimony of 2009 she lacks factual consistence: she contradicts the sequence she had described previously about the text message, she asserts that the police treated her unkindly only as long as she did not make the name of Lumumba (which happened before 01:45) and then, after that she was consoled and "treated like a person".
Bear in mind also that Amanda is a convict liar so not even Hellmann bought her story; while Anna Donnino is in all respects a reliable witness and a honest person.

 

[Machiavelli]

Of course, she may have been obliged to show restraint in her criticisms of the police by the propensity of the public prosecutor for firing writs in all directions in their cause. So, I would not draw any very strong inferences from the supposed absence of criticism. I do not share your understanding anyway. We know she:
1 was screaming (suggesting distress)
2 was deprived of sleep for a prolonged period
3 was deprived of refreshment
4 was not afforded legal assistance and
5 produced two statements whose content showed that what she said was fed to her by her interrogators

If the tapes were not critical they would have emerged by now.

I am not talking about "criticism".
I am talking about providing an account of facts, a claim about what happened during the interrogation.

What you say about the prosecutor is nonsense: besides the objectionable, and false as far as I know, assertion that Mignini was "firing writs", there is a point that I am talking about the preliminary investigation. At that stage the name of Mignini was totally unknown, and such claimed "propensity to firing writs" (which is a US media invention anyway) could not be known to Knox or to her lawyers. Anyway the insinuation itself that Mignini was intimidating her attorneys, is a prejudice extremely far-fetched and insulting, bears no resemblance to reality and lacks any proof.

Then, if we had an early different claim by Knox, we would could compare it with the testimony of police officers that followed. But this different account lacks completely. Since 2009 we have a series of lies, of inconsistent, changing and vague reconstructions.

The comment "if the tapes were not critical... " is absurd. The tapes may well not exist, or be critical only from the point of view of the police because the police hit her. The fact that they have not emerged does not implly that they must show Knox's innocence.

The points 1-5 are void. Point 3 is false (she was given chaminille tee and food more times between 1:45 and 5:54). Point 2 is false, or better pointless: "prolonged time" here is less than one night. We are talking of a healthy young adult person, the human system is perfectly equipped to endure this kind of emergency if needed with no particular distress. Point 4 itself does not cause history to change or prosecutors to became conspirators. Point 1 is documented, and you bet she had good reasons to feel distressed and desperate if she was guilty. Point 5 is plainly false: she produced three statements, and in my opinion they show the opposite. They show they were not controlled by the police and also show her ongoing attempts of manipulation.

 

[anglolawyer]

Maybe someone went to a mental hospital and commissioned a forgery... but more likely Quennell posted it on his website and this is a screen shot.

Michael is now claiming it's a forgery created by YOU.

 

[Kaosium]

Kaosium - I know no more (considerably less probably) than you. If Frank says the tapes exist I believe him and I also believe truth will out (in this instance).

Thanks for the clarification. I too once hoped those tapes would come to light, but gave up on them long ago, assuming they'd been destroyed. If the tapes actually do exist then the failure of the cops to produce them after Amanda testified is pretty much an admission they cannot let them be seen.

If the tapes exist, then after Amanda testified they could have destroyed her credibility wholesale by producing them (that is if they would corroborate what Ficarra, Napoleoni and Zugarini testified to) and thus discredited Amanda and probably put her in a jail cell for life. If they exist and that action wasn't taken--at the very least in the press where other interrogation tapes from other cases have been seen--that strongly suggests the cops won't ever allow them to be seen.

It does beg the question of why they still exist, however. What set of conditions could cause that, now that their story is (definitely) that the night's festivities weren't taped?

 

[anglolawyer]

I am not talking about "criticism".
I am talking about providing an account of facts, a claim about what happened during the interrogation.

What you say about the prosecutor is nonsense: besides the objectionable, and false as far as I know, assertion that Mignini was "firing writs", there is a point that I am talking about the preliminary investigation. At that stage the name of Mignini was totally unknown, and such claimed "propensity to firing writs" (which is a US media invention anyway) could not be known to Knox or to her lawyers. Anyway the insinuation itself that Mignini was intimidating her attorneys, is a prejudice extremely far-fetched and insulting, bears no resemblance to reality and lacks any proof.

Then, if we had an early different claim by Knox, we would could compare it with the testimony of police officers that followed. But this different account lacks completely. Since 2009 we have a series of lies, of inconsistent, changing and vague reconstructions.

The comment "if the tapes were not critical... " is absurd. The tapes may well not exist, or be critical only from the point of view of the police because the police hit her. The fact that they have not emerged does not implly that they must show Knox's innocence.

The points 1-5 are void. Point 3 is false (she was given chaminille tee and food more times between 1:45 and 5:54). Point 2 is false, or better pointless: "prolonged time" here is less than one night. We are talking of a healthy young adult person, the human system is perfectly equipped to endure this kind of emergency if needed with no particular distress. Point 4 itself does not cause history to change or prosecutors to became conspirators. Point 1 is documented, and you bet she had good reasons to feel distressed and desperate if she was guilty. Point 5 is plainly false: she produced three statements, and in my opinion they show the opposite. They show they were not controlled by the police and also show her ongoing attempts of manipulation.

I expect we shall hear Amanda's account in her slander trial ( which arises from one of the writs flung out like confetti by Mignini.
1 I don't see why, if she were guilty, she would be screaming. I have sat in on police interviews and never heard the accused scream. Anyway, we agree she was screaming, suggesting distress.
2 she had already spent many hours at the Questura since 02/11/2007 and was exhausted. The police counted on taking advantage of this exhaustion by scheduling a 12 man tag-team to be on hand throughout the night.
3 let's see the custody record, which ought to detail refreshments provided, including breaks for rest, themselves including comfort breaks
4 I disagree. To suggest, in effect, that it makes no difference to the outcome whether a person entilted to a lawyer is provided with one is to denude the relevant law of any meaning. A lawyer would have advised against co-operating with police suggestions that she should try to 'imagine' what happened, would have insisted on rest and refreshment and on proper recording. Had that happened, Mignini would have had no case at all. Your own supreme court ruled the statements unusable for breach of the important right to legal counsel and I am shocked that, as a lawyer yourself (if I understand correctly) you would argue otherwise.
5 I refer you to my comparison of the 1.45 and 5.45 statements upthread. I would be interested on your comments on the evolution of what she said in those four hours. For instance, how came it about that at 1.45 Lumumba was a frequent and welcome visitor to the apartment but by 5.45 all reference to these visits has gone and now Amanda is afraid of him. Neither is true, of course, but what do you think prompted Amanda to advance these inconsistent accounts?

Of course, until we hear (or see) the tapes, we cannot know what they show. We have to content ourselves, for the time being, with drawing reasonable inferences from their suppression by those responsible for making and preserving the evidence they contain.

And others probably have greater knowledge than me, but Mignini certainly seems to be more than trigger-happy with proceedings against those who dare to criticise this corrupt prosecution, including The West Seattle Herald, Frank Sfarzo, Amanda herself and her parents.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Billy Wayne Cope

I had never heard of this case, but a quick search turns up accounts that seem to indicate pretty clearly that this guy was browbeaten into a false confession without a lawyer for killing his daughter while two other daughters were asleep in their house, and convicted even after DNA from a known break-in artist was found at the scene:

Bob001,

Some of my friends and I have discussed this case as one that should be pursued by grass-roots activism. Here is a blog that is generally pro-prosecution, but in this instance even they have real problems with Mr. Cope's situation. ETA, As I have said previously, I think that the conspiracy alleged between Cope and the man whom I believe is the true assailant is on par with the conspiracy alleged by the prosecution in this case: neither one makes a lick of sense.

 

[anglolawyer]

Thanks for the clarification. I too once hoped those tapes would come to light, but gave up on them long ago, assuming they'd been destroyed. If the tapes actually do exist then the failure of the cops to produce them after Amanda testified is pretty much an admission they cannot let them be seen.

If the tapes exist, then after Amanda testified they could have destroyed her credibility wholesale by producing them (that is if they would corroborate what Ficarra, Napoleoni and Zugarini testified to) and thus discredited Amanda and probably put her in a jail cell for life. If they exist and that action wasn't taken--at the very least in the press where other interrogation tapes from other cases have been seen--that strongly suggests the cops won't ever allow them to be seen.

It does beg the question of why they still exist, however. What set of conditions could cause that, now that their story is (definitely) that the night's festivities weren't taped?

If the recordings are digital, copying them would be easy. A good cop might have preserved a copy.

I agree completely about the inferences you draw from the non-production of these recordings, in precisely the same way that deductions could be made about the non-production of Stefanoni's data files, before they actually showed up and confirmed them, and many many other points of a similar kind.

 

[Dan O.]

It does beg the question of why they still exist, however. What set of conditions could cause that, now that their story is (definitely) that the night's festivities weren't taped?

I speculated on this very point many threads ago. Machiavelli chose to ignore my question then. I suspect he will choose to ignore it now.

The tapes exists and are in safe hands. Otherwise Frank would not be inviting Perugia's finest to rearrange his face again to find out where they are.

 

[Malkmus]

The essence of a defence against the calunnia charge concerning Lumumba, relates NOT to the coersion, but to the non-spontaneous nature of what Knox said, coerced or not.

There is a full discussion on IIP.

I believe that Mignini's CNN interview, translated into English by ("Jools"?) and anrranged by Peggy Ganong, and available in the TJMK website, shows what I mean.

Mignini himself knows that "spontaneity" of Knox's statements is what's at issue. It's one of the chief reasons there are TWO interrogations on the night of Nov 5/6.

In the CNN interview, Mignini quotes the law, as if he had quoted it to the officers who had conducted the pre-1:45 am interview of a "person informed of the facts." He then describes to CNN how it is he himself breaks that law by going fishing for "spontaneous" statements from Knox, where he acts, "only as if a notary." That "only as if a notary," is the excuse Mignini gives for actually breaking the law - but he had to risk it for the sake of the issue missing from.....

... both the text of the 1:45 am Memoradum signed by Knox, but more importantly completely missing in the only intact description of how Lumumba's name came into the room pre-1:45 am.

There is nothing wrong with Knox's pre-1:45 am confused admission about Lumumba if it was only Lumumba they were after.

What is wrong, is that to further pin the murder onto Knox, they had to make it seem that she'd made that admission "spontaneously", and coersion really doesn't matter, really.

Mignini knew it, which is a major agenda for the second interrogation.

AngloLawyer did a "side by side" comparision of each, and what had changed as important for the second.

Then again, all of this will be moot.

Agreed, but I'm not talking about the tapes as they relate to the calunnia charge, but how the implication of Patrick by Amanda during her interrogation is the backbone of why pretty much anyone thinks Amanda Knox is guilty. If those tapes came out I'm pretty certain that all guilter theories of how Amanda broke down and named Patrick out of the blue would go down the drain.
And Yummi is already on his way to proving my point about guilters having no interest in seeing such tapes, because of course they would not corroborate what they they think:

I bet the majority of PMF members wouldn't even bother to listen to the tapes if they knew they existed.

there is nothing to "seek" though the tapes

 

[Bill Williams]

Bear in mind also that Amanda is a convict liar so not even Hellmann bought her story; while Anna Donnino is in all respects a reliable witness and a honest person.

Machiavelli - out of all the libels you fling at Knox, this is one of them. Have you read the Hellmann-Zanetti motivation's report on why they upheld the calunnia conviction?

Hellmann is saying that Knox caved into the interrogator's suggestions that Lumumba was there. Hellmann specficially REJECTS the prosecution claim that:

According to the prosecution theory, Amanda Knox, at this point exhausted by the long interrogation and especially demoralized after having learned from her interrogators that Raffaele Sollecito had (so to speak) abandoned her to her fate, denying [her] the alibi that she had offered up until then (having spent the whole night together at Sollecito’s house), launched a final attempt at defense, by reporting more or less what really happened in the residence on Via Della Pergola, but substituting Patrick Lumumba for Rudy Guede: “black man for black man”, in the Public Minister’s words.

In other words, it is the prosecution who said Knox lied. As do you.

Hellmann, in positing another "motive" for caluunia, which is not "lying, says it best:

To determine the real significance [per valutare la reale portata] of the “spontaneous” statements and the note written practically right afterward, we must take into account the context in which the former were given and the latter was written.

To make it "lying" Knox's statements needed to be seen as "spontaneous", and note how Hellmann puts the word "Spontaneous" in quotes, and also further shows translator Anna Donnino to have been less than helpful in this process. Donnino may have been an honest person and a reliable witness, but at the interrogation she is unprofessional and introduces stuff unfair prejudical. I full suspect Donnino was trying to be helpful, but if I ever see her coming my way to help me, I will run in the other direction.

The obsessive length of the interrogations, carried out during [both] day and night, by more than one person, on a young and foreign girl who at the time did not speak Italian at all well, was unaware of her own rights, did not have the assistance of an attorney (which she should have been entitled to, being at this point suspected of very serious crimes), and was moreover being assisted by an interpreter who — as shown by Ms. Bongiorno — did not limit herself to translating, but induced her to force herself to remember, explaining that she [Amanda] was confused in her memories, perhaps because of the trauma she experienced, makes it wholly understandable that she was in a situation of considerable psychological pressure (to call it stress seems an understatement [appare riduttivo]), enough to raise doubts about the actual spontaneity of her statements; a spontaneity which would have strangely [singolarmente] arisen in the middle of the night, after hours and hours of interrogation: the so-called spontaneous statements were made at 1:45 am (middle of the night) on 11-6-2007 (the day after the interrogation had started) and again at 5:45 am afterward, and the note was written a few hours later.

Hellmann goes on further to use Donnino's tesitmony to destroy any sense that Knox's admissions could not be regarded as spontaneous, and therefore not in and of themselves lies:

Beyond the formal aspect, the context in which those statements were made was clearly characterized by a psychological situation which for Amanda Knox had become an unsupportable burden: witness Donnino reports that an outright emotional shock on the part of Amanda Knox occurred when the matter of the exchange of messages with Lumumba was raised.

"The matter of the exchange of messages with Lumumba was raised." Who raised them? Knox? Donnino? No. Donnino herself, testifies that Lumumba was brought into the room by someone else.

At the end of the day, though, Hellmann concludes that while "understandable", Knox is convictable of calunnia while maintaining that "lying" was not her agenda....

In that context, it is understandable that Amanda Knox, yielding to pressure and fatigue, would have hoped to put an end to that situation by giving her interrogators that which, in the end, they wanted to hear: a name, a murderer.

Also.......

(all this) makes it seem like the confused narration of a dream, albeit a macabre one, and not the description of events that actually happened — which confirms the state that Amanda Knox was in at the time she made the spontaneous statements and wrote the note, and rules out the possibility that the purpose of either could have been to conceal [tacere, lit. "keep quiet"] the name of the actual perpetrator, Rudy Guede, [even] on the assumption that it was known to her, as a co-conspirator [concorrente].

Once again, I need a list of lies. This is not one of them, and demonstrably not one of them.

That you continue to do the two things below makes me suspect that simply, irrational hatred is running this show,

1) continuing to make bald aseertions like, "she's a convicted liar"
2) unwilling to actually list the specifics of any lies claimed

I write this now abandoning the hope that even as a courtesy I can be provided with such a list, but in the hope that a lurker out there will not be taken it by the bald faced, hateful assertions.

That's about where I am right now.

 

[Bill Williams]

Agreed, but I'm not talking about the tapes as they relate to the calunnia charge, but how the implication of Patrick by Amanda during her interrogation is the backbone of why pretty much anyone thinks Amanda Knox is guilty. If those tapes came out I'm pretty certain that all guilter theories of how Amanda broke down and named Patrick out of the blue would go down the drain.
And Yummi is already on his way to proving my point about guilters having no interest in seeing such tapes, because of course they would not corroborate what they they think:

The backbone of what PGP think about this case is, "all the lies Amanda Knox told."

How do I know this? I asked them. I take them at their word.

Once again I am stumped as to why only one PGP has attempted such a listing.... Harry Rag's list. I will give Rag the benefit of the dout by saying that the "past-due date" of his list, is probably the reason why none of the points contained therein, at this point in 2012, really pass muster.

If nothing else, if Mr. Rag is still around, he may wish a revised list to reflect what is known about the horrible murder case at this point.

So I respectfully disagree with you about what PGP will find if and when the tapes are released. It will be, front and centre, a confirmation of everything Amanda Knox (and Raffaele S. AND Patrick Lumumba!) says about what happens in a Perugian interrogation, whether or not you are a suspect OR "a person informed of the facts".

I think they will deomnstrate what Hellmann said happened at interrogation - even has Hellmann still concludes her complicity in calunnia.

But when this grand lie claimed disappears, all the other lies Knox was supposed to have told will also disappear.

That is, if someone takes the time to list them... no wonder they don't disappear, their like some long lost Aunt who the family always talks about, only that you find the Aunt never really existed.

 

[Bill Williams]

I speculated on this very point many threads ago. Machiavelli chose to ignore my question then. I suspect he will choose to ignore it now.

The tapes exists and are in safe hands. Otherwise Frank would not be inviting Perugia's finest to rearrange his face again to find out where they are.

I am becoming very frustrated with PGP who are invited to assert their case, by drawing up a list of lies, who never actually do it.... but they reserve to right to call someone a liar, perhaps hoping that by sheer repetition someone else might believe it.

It is also very plain that the main reason why Frank's face has not been rearranged over the tapes is that these "safe hands" in possession are outside of the control of the Italian judiciary and police forces. Once it becomes known who these "safe hands" belong to, it will be plain why they are not being released today.

Like many things in life, timing is important and there will not be many posts from folk like Machiavelli once the fullness of time arrives. Other folks with similar views and similar websites will be paying for consultations with their own lawyers, too.

 

[RoseMontague]

I speculated on this very point many threads ago. Machiavelli chose to ignore my question then. I suspect he will choose to ignore it now.

The tapes exists and are in safe hands. Otherwise Frank would not be inviting Perugia's finest to rearrange his face again to find out where they are.

If nothing else the existence of the tape points to the cops and Mignini as being the liars. My guess is that it will also show his personal interrogation of Amanda after the 1:45AM statement and effectively end his career.

 

[Malkmus]

The backbone of what PGP think about this case is, "all the lies Amanda Knox told."

How do I know this? I asked them. I take them at their word.

Once again I am stumped as to why only one PGP has attempted such a listing.... Harry Rag's list. I will give Rag the benefit of the dout by saying that the "past-due date" of his list, is probably the reason why none of the points contained therein, at this point in 2012, really pass muster.

If nothing else, if Mr. Rag is still around, he may wish a revised list to reflect what is known about the horrible murder case at this point.

So I respectfully disagree with you about what PGP will find if and when the tapes are released. It will be, front and centre, a confirmation of everything Amanda Knox (and Raffaele S. AND Patrick Lumumba!) says about what happens in a Perugian interrogation, whether or not you are a suspect OR "a person informed of the facts". I think they will deomnstrate what Hellmann said happened at interrogation - even has Hellmann still concludes her complicity in calunnia.

But when this grand lie claimed disappears, all the other lies Knox was supposed to have told will also disappear.

That is, if someone takes the time to list them... no wonder they don't disappear, their like some long lost Aunt who the family always talks about, only that you find the Aunt never really existed.

Not sure I understand what the disagreement is here. I too believe that the tapes would support fully what Amanda stated happened during the interrogation. I think the only disagreement is over what is the "backbone" of the PGP belief system. To me, if the tapes come out it would show unequivocally that Amanda was innocent of this crime - the interrogation is, after all, what got her into the whole mess and without the statements she supposedly wrote during it none of us would be here discussing this case. Therefore, any "list of lies" thereafter would be fruitless.

 

[Kaosium]

Just to make the distinction here: PMF is not just thousands of posts decrying the existence of the JREF threads, 'outing' posters in the thread with pictures and work histories, and 'importing' their posts to piss on daily, it's also this which is the largest repository of materials on the case available to the public. That's just one section, which includes the videos of Amanda testifying, the tapes of it and translations, as well as translations of Raffaele's diary. At the top you can download the 400 page Massei Report. Other sections include translations of the ~20 page Matteini Report (their first court appearance) foreign articles, and links to dozens of newspaper accounts of the proceedings.

That archive afforded them to some a stature in the case far beyond their analytic ability, which they included (free of charge!) to the eventual embarrassment of the ones they influenced. Here's¹ Andrea Vogt, one of the only two American reporters following the case regularly, quoting their 'forensics moderator' to refute expert opinion on the forensics in the case. Laura Wray works in the fashion industry. Her 'analysis' of the DNA evidence was divorced² from³ reality.⁴ That she could affect coverage of the case on a crucial issue like this because of the existence of PMF is astounding--and that sort of thing ought to be up for skeptical inquiry. They're just a bunch of people that started posting about a case and built a website with an archive, their 'analysis' is deliberately skewed by bias, their ability to affect coverage on the issue is a phenomena that shouldn't go unnoticed.




¹

But Laura Wray, an American molecular biologist living in Milan, Italy, who works regularly with DNA samples, said she believes many of the defense claims of contamination or poor match are "groundless."

Concerns about contamination aside, investigators have definitively matched DNA found on the bra clasp to Sollecito, said Wray, who has followed the case closely.

²

In the final stages of the high-profile trial in Perugia, Italy, in which Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are charged with the murder of British student Meredith Kercher, DNA evidence brought by the prosecution is being questioned by nine US specialists in DNA forensics.

A verdict is expected on 7 December. Knox and Sollecito are pleading not guilty. In an open letter, the US specialists outline their concerns with two pieces of DNA evidence that are central to the case against Knox and Sollecito.

The defence has already suggested that the amount of DNA allegedly linking the pair to the crime is too small to be definitive. The letter raises the possibility that this DNA was introduced through contamination of the evidence and concludes that the DNA test results "could have been obtained even if no crime had occurred".

³

ITEM 165B (BRA CLASPS)

Relative to Item 165B (bra clasps), we find that the technical analysis is not reliable for the following reasons:

1. There does not exist evidence which scientifically confirms the presence of supposed flaking cells on the item;

2. There was an erroneous interpretation of the electrophoretic profile of the autosomic STRs;

3. There was an erroneous interpretation of the electrophoretic profile relative to the Y chromosome;

4. The international protocols for inspection, collection, and sampling of the item were not followed;

5. It cannot be ruled out that the results obtained derive from environmental contamination and/or contamination in some phase of the collection and/or handling of the item.

THE EXPERTS

Prof. Carla Vecchiotti

Prof. Stefano Conti

⁴

Therefore, leaving aside the ambiguous interpretation of the graphs, which has already been discussed, this Court holds it can accept the theory of a probable contamination: because when the item was collected, none of the necessary precautions were taken to guarantee its integrity; because it seems very improbable that Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA was left only on the hook, and not on the parts of the bra material which were easier to grasp, and [indeed] necessary to grasp when trying to cut or tear it from the young woman’s body; because it is not likely that Raffaele Sollecito (as well as Amanda Knox), hypothetically protagonists on a par with Rudy Guede, took part in the attack inside a room which was certainly not large, without also leaving DNA and their own prints on other parts of the body or on objects and clothing, where in contrast Rudy Guede, who is certainly guilty, left DNA and prints inside the room on several parts of the body of the attacked woman (in particular in her vagina) and on her clothing (sweatshirt, material from the bra) and on objects present there.

 

[Machiavelli]

I expect we shall hear Amanda's account in her slander trial ( which arises from one of the writs flung out like confetti by Mignini.
1 I don't see why, if she were guilty, she would be screaming. I have sat in on police interviews and never heard the accused scream. Anyway, we agree she was screaming, suggesting distress.

You don't see it while I see it perfectly. It belongs to Amanda's account she made herself, she said she had a sort of hysterical breakdown.
I probably don't agree quite with the word "scream", because we are more likely talking about "wailing", a person crying loudly and theatrically.
But it is also a scene vividly described by Anna Donnino: the scene is clear, there is no mystery about it. The fact is, that Knox is what Lumumba says: an actress. The purpose of a "screaming" is to stage an emotional loss of control, play a state of alteration and confusion, in order to appear credible as she is about to change completely tune and script.
Staging an emotional or physical altered condition is something people who feel under intense threat sometimes do. Guilty people do it under interrogation. A few days ago guy did it while he and his family were threatned and kidnapped during a robbery. Is a desperate attempt to manipulate the ones who are cornering them.

2 she had already spent many hours at the Questura since 02/11/2007 and was exhausted. The police counted on taking advantage of this exhaustion by scheduling a 12 man tag-team to be on hand throughout the night.

Inconsistent and unsupported claim. Knox had attended classes and was doing her homework that night, shich she described as "very difficult", still at around 10:00 pm. Then she was making cartwheels and stretches.
A person who is exhausted does not do homework, and is not still studying at 10:00 pm; and doesn't relax doing cartwheels and physical exercise. An exhausted person doesn't take classes at all (which don't even belong to her university course).
In fact Amanda had not been summoned to the police station, she had no need to be there, an exhaused person, who is not forced to do so, does not walk to the police station and stay there hours with no need. An exhausted person deprived of sleep would stay at home and go to sleep.
Any claim of deprivation of sleep and exhaustion requires some evidence, and the facts as you see are just evidence of the opposite.

3 let's see the custody record, which ought to detail refreshments provided, including breaks for rest, themselves including comfort breaks

This is again absurd. There is nobody who "oughts" anything. There is nothing more to prove. The witness accounts are clear and her own account was not disproving them. Breaks for rest, confort rests? (?!) What are you talking about? Knox's interrogation was over at 01:45.
Again, to make any claim of denial of foor or brakes, it is those who make this claim who have a burden of proof, or at least bring evidence. Here we didn't even have a claim!

4 I disagree. To suggest, in effect, that it makes no difference to the outcome whether a person entilted to a lawyer is provided with one is to denude the relevant law of any meaning. A lawyer would have advised against co-operating with police suggestions that she should try to 'imagine' what happened, would have insisted on rest and refreshment and on proper recording...

But you are mixing up things.
Knox was not just "entitled to a lawyer". She became entitled to a lawyer at 01:45, but the lawyer shoudl protect her as a suspect, not as a witness. After thet, she was not asked at all to "imagine" what happened (even before, she was asked about information she knew).
She released a stetement that might be inadmissible against her as a suspect. But this does not allow her to be shielded if she tells the false as a witness. She did not accuse herself alone, she accused another person. She acted as a witness. And this is a point.
She released a false witness report and there is no claim about the lack of lawyer that can change or nullify this. This will remain, cannot be explain by poin 4 in terms of legitimacy, this is something different and requires its own explanation.

5 I refer you to my comparison of the 1.45 and 5.45 statements upthread. I would be interested on your comments on the evolution of what she said in those four hours. For instance, how came it about that at 1.45 Lumumba was a frequent and welcome visitor to the apartment but by 5.45 all reference to these visits has gone and now Amanda is afraid of him. Neither is true, of course, but what do you think prompted Amanda to advance these inconsistent accounts?

In 01:45 Lumumba is not referred to as a "frequent" visitor.
What I think is Knox changed her strategy with her "crisis" during the 01:45 interrogation, and consequently she adjusted her scenario building it in steps. She realizes the police thinks she was protecting the murderer; she realizes that, since now her goal is to be believed playing the part of a witness, since she witnessed the murder they would need an explanation for why she didn't talk before. Her account can't stand without providin this and other explanations. This is why she decides to release a further spontatìneous statement. So why didn't she talk before? Because she is very afraid of Patrick. It's a new element, functional to repair the holes and bolster her new version.

Of course, until we hear (or see) the tapes, we cannot know what they show. We have to content ourselves, for the time being, with drawing reasonable inferences from their suppression by those responsible for making and preserving the evidence they contain.

Actually, you first should prove they existed and that there was any suppression, and you also shall know what legally "evidence" means: police tapes of this kind are not admissible in court.

In fact, in my limited experince with police interrogation videos, I realized that they are often not conclusive at all. I recall two videos, one was a police video in which the confession appeared sincere and uncoerced, but it was coerced. Another one was a prosecution interrogation in which the witness appeared coerced, the prosecutor was blackmailing and threatning, but the testimony was not coerced. It is often not possible to infer coercion by a video, for multiple reasons, among them that coercion is a subjective condition.
It is not the event but subsequent the claims and accounts of the witnesses, what allows to see the diference. In these two cases, their subsequent claims were the determinant thing to understand what was coerced and what was not. The consistence and credibility of claims makes the difference.

 

[TomPaine]

Not sure I understand what the disagreement is here...To me, if the tapes come out it would show unequivocally that Amanda was innocent of this crime - the interrogation is, after all, what got her into the whole mess and without the statements she supposedly wrote during it none of us would be here discussing this case. Therefore, any "list of lies" thereafter would be fruitless.

Amanda Knox does not, and should not need to prove that she is innocent of the crime. She only needs to show that the state, using all the powers at its disposal, cannot show her guilty of the crime. My understanding of the case is that she is, in fact, innocent, but her innocence or guilt is a secondary issue. The question that interests me is on what grounds a state (in this case, the Italian state) attempts to prove someone's guilt. In this respect, the Italian state, in the person of Mignigni, failed miserably. As bad as the murder of a promising young woman at the cusp of her life, is the incarceration of another--for most of her life--to salve the vanity of highly placed state officials who accused someone too early and had little real evidence on which to base their accusations.

 

[Machiavelli]

To make it "lying" Knox's statements needed to be seen as "spontaneous", and note how Hellmann puts the word "Spontaneous" in quotes, and also further shows translator Anna Donnino to have been less than helpful in this process. Donnino may have been an honest person and a reliable witness, but at the interrogation she is unprofessional and introduces stuff unfair prejudical. I full suspect Donnino was trying to be helpful, but if I ever see her coming my way to help me, I will run in the other direction

.

Sorry but this makes no sense. Hellmann sentenced Amanda Knox to three years imprisonment for lying. She ws found guilty of calunnia. To be guilty of calunnia one has to provide false information voluntarily.
The fact that Hellmann is unable to motivate his conclusion logically, it's not my fault. He asserts or implies somehow a lack of spontaneity, but he convicts her for lying out of her free will. This is inconsistent (like the rest of what Hellmann says) but he did found her guilty of telling lies voluntarily.
Because, legally the term "spontaneous" does not mean emotionally spontaneous in the common sense, but just voluntarily released without an interrogation, her statement is classified as spontaneous. Because she released it on her own decision while she was capable to will and understand (so assumes Hellmann to convict her), she is lying.

Hellmann goes on further to use Donnino's tesitmony to destroy any sense that Knox's admissions could not be regarded as spontaneous, and therefore not in and of themselves lies:

Hellmann convicted her for lying, you shall divert your complaints towards his office.
If he asserts that her declarations are coerced, and few lines after that they were voluntary and she accused Lumumba on her own choice, and convicts her, this means he has a serious problem in writing motivation reports (we already knew that).

Once again, I need a list of lies. This is not one of them, and demonstrably not one of them.

Amanda Knox's false accusation is definitely a further stockpile of lies, that are demonstrated to be so, and acknowledged as such by Hellmann's conviction. However, when I think at her lies I mean lies that she told even before her false accusation.

That you continue to do the two things below makes me suspect that simply, irrational hatred is running this show,

1) continuing to make bald aseertions like, "she's a convicted liar"

There are people here who make bald and false assertions of the kind: Mignini is corrupt, Mignini is a liar, Stefanoni is a liar, and worse. With no proof, no evidence, no rational element.
I can pick up a legal paper signed by Hellmann that declares that Knox is a convicted liar, and state this with full backing.

2) unwilling to actually list the specifics of any lies claimed

It's you who asked specifically about Knox's lies. It is not that I came here to specifically to claim and explain that point. I consider this point of evidence still as sentisive material, thus not to be "given to the enemy".
But you claim that - this is your belief - that the guilters are clinging to Knox's lies as if it was the main evidence. This is not correct for what concerns myself. Lies are one point in the evidence. But for example, the autopsy report and the physical scene, to me is another damning piece of evidence. The evidence contains many points, is long and articulate, and crushing.
Hatred possibly is not a correct word. I don't think my "hatred" against Knox is any different than the feeling of anyone for an individul whom they know to be a murderer. If you know someone committed a crime, there is an intrinsic sense of justice that leads you to stigmatize such individual.
I don't think I feel more hatred towards Knox than against other criminals; in fact, there are people in Italy against whom my feelings are much worse than those against Knox. Even within this case. If I had to chose a person as a target for a vendetta I would never chose Knox; within this case in my "list of people to hate" I would chose Vecchiotti and Hellmann, then a number of others, long before Amanda Knox.
Actually I feel almost nothing for Amanda Knox. No sympathy, but no strong feeling of any kind. Knox to me is no interesting charachter.

 

[TomPaine]

But it is also a scene vividly described by Anna Donnino: the scene is clear, there is no mystery about it. The fact is, that Knox is what Lumumba says: an actress."

This is not a fact, but your interpretation based on speculation of what actually happened.

Unfortunately, although the Perugian police kept copious records of tapped telephone conversations before and after this interrogation (for which they had sufficient funds, and which never provided any incriminating evidence), although they had sufficient funds to finance a fanciful video recreation of the crime (some $150,000.00!), they claim they lacked the funds to record this particular, crucial interview.