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.
Well, if we had the tapes your agreement or otherwise to what you seemed to agree before would be immaterial. Giobbi described it as screaming.
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.
There it is again - Amanda Knox is an actress. The guilters' all-purpose, no escape weapon whenever there is any behaviour which points to innocence, such as acquiring popularity at Capanne. So, this 'fact' of yours. Upon what is it based? How come this 'actress' failed to disport herself in court to her own advantage but instead turned up in Beatles T-shirts and had the temerity to exchange chocolates with Raffaele and smile at her family? At those times, I assume, she was letting her guard down. So, she's an actress when it suits your narrative but one who constantly reveals her true nature at her times (when her liberty is at stake and the eyes of the whole world are watching her every move). It's a book she's bringing out, not a starring role in a Hollywood movie.
I do not believe Anna Donnino who was, at the very least, unprofessional in joining in the interrogation instead of doing her job as an interpreter.
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.
So Amanda withstood the pressure until the early hours of the morning, then screamed and then staged a manipulative scene
'in a desperate' attempt to manipulate. That hardly does her justice, does it? The 'attempt' was completely successful as it sent the keystone cops off to arrest Lumumba and to pronounce the case closed. This, without any attempt to check Lumumba's alibi and not a single shred of forensic evidence. Lumumba was beaten by the same police who interrogated Amanda. Is he lying? No. So the police who interrogated Amanda Knox are violent thugs, criminals actually, and stupid ones at that while she is a young person of previous good character. A cock and bull story is advanced that, due to lack of funds, the interrogation was not recorded. This is a lie. Why would they lie? Presuambly to hide their embarrassment at being manipulated by the consummate actress Knox.
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.
All of us become tired at night, whatever has happened in the previous days. In fact, Amanda will have experienced deep trauma and shock in the days preceding her interrogation and she had spent many hours at the Questura. The police know what they are about when they set up a 12-man team to conduct an all-night interrogation (a point I repeat as you have chosen to ignore it). Anyway, your position is clear - she was not exhausted and made her two completely meaningless statements, not merely voluntarily but as part of a cynical manipulative ploy to deceive the police into believing that Patrick Lumumba murdered Medith Kercher.
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!
I am an English solicitor. I know my system, not the Italian one. Here, by statute, we have a custody officer who is required to maintain a record of relevant events occurring during detention, including frequency and duration of breaks, provision of refreshments etc. length and timing of interrogation. How about Italy? You tell us. Why would the burden be on the suspect? She doesn't have a notebook to record these events and will be preoccupied with the more pressing matter of addressing the questions and allegations being put to her. You seem to believe the police can treat suspects harshly, supress recordings, deny them legal representation and that the burden should still be on suspect to prove misconduct. Since these officers are known to be violent thugs (Lumumba says so) and for other reasons also, the burden should be on them, as in any civilised and properly balanced system.
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.
She was entitled to a lawyer when she walked into the room because the police already suspected her. That's why they lined up a 12-man tag team to interrogate her through the night until they broke her. Again, let's hear the tape so we can see the precise point at which the questioning crossed the line. Who has the tape? Who has a reason for withholding it?
In 01:45 Lumumba is not referred to as a "frequent" visitor.
The English translation says he had 'frequented(if occasionally)' the apartment. In fact he had never been there. The 5.45 statement does not repeat this claim but replaces it with another falsehood, that Amanda was afraid of Patrick. Try as I might, I cannot see the purpose of these demonstrable lies, from Amanda's point of view. On the other hand, i can see very well how the evolution of her statements will have suited the crackpot theorising of Mignini.
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.
But she is not afraid of Patrick and Patrick was not involved in the murder at all. What is this strategy, which puts her at the scene of the crime without Raffaele (at 1.45 but maybe with him at 5.45) and without Guede but with someone who (if she were guilty) she knew was not there? This just implicates herself and condemns her as an inveterate liar as well. She was not exhausted (you say) was well refreshed (you say) and had four hours to think things over and comes up with this? Why not say: 'I confusedly remember Raffaele killed her?' especially since Raffaele had ratted on her by withdrawing her alibi?
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.
The Italian police tape everything that moves. Of course the tapes exist. May I have a reference for your claim that the tapes are not admissible? With all due respect, I don't accept that as it makes no sense.
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.
Conclusive or not, it would be fun to see/hear them. Then we could make up our own minds rather than leaving it to the likes of Donnino and the police thugs to tell us.
