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

[anglolawyer]

I am not certain how much Amanda could say or be questioned further once she placed herself at the scene of the crime (according to the penal code). And it makes a difference whether it was Amanda who initiated the 5:45 spontaneous declaration or whether it was the police/Mignini.

There are always her prior statements when questioned before the evening of November 5 early morning November 6 which may give more information along with the questioning of November 5.

Do you have a particular provision of the code in mind? I would be interested to follow that up.

Because all our different legal systems are mostly addressing the same problems in different ways, and comparisons are useful, I want to briefly describe a lawful police interview here in England and Wales (maybe Scotland too) under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1994. The act radically reformed pre-existing procedures.

Essentially, the interrogation consists of a taped interview, usually in the presence of a lawyer. The tape is switched on, the location and time are stated, those present identify themselves for the tape and a caution is administered to the suspect (right to remain silent, answers may be used in evidence, silence may be a matter for comment) who signifies whether he understands it. Questioning commences, with mandatory breaks if it is a long interrogation.

There are two tapes and one of them is given to the suspect('s lawyer) at the end of the .

In the ensuing proceedings, a full transcript will be supplied by the prosecution, including every 'um' and 'er'. A two hour interview will give rise to a hundred pages or so.

Compare this with the Questura. Basically, there is no comparison. I am not going to list all the differences because they are obvious. It's like a return to the Dark Ages.

Even pre-1994, when there were no tapes, a statement under caution would be a ball-breaking manuscript written out by some hapless detective while his colleague grilled the suspect before getting him to sign each page and initial each (usually quite a few) alterations. In terms of quantity, there would be a ton of paper after a lengthy session like the one Amanda went through.

So I find the two statements surprisingly perfunctory and difficult to reconcile with the objective of eliciting helpful information from a witness or a suspect.

 

[TomPaine]

Sorry, to be clear, the two statements of 06/11/2007 were typed out in Italian and signed by Amanda. The English translations on IIP were made by Komponisto IIRC (if it was Teddy/Newcomer apologies to him/her)

Not a problem. Sorry if I misread your post. I'm still learning--fitfully--how to wend my way through and weave my thoughts into this intricate forum discussion that seems to have already been thoroughly raked over. ;-)

My understanding of your argument doesn't hinge on whether the final statement was in Italian or in English, anyway, but on the supposition that an explanation for the conflicting elements, i.e., the two contradictory voices they contain, may be that those elements in which Amanda asserts she was present at the scene of the crime were fed to her by the Perugian police, because they needed to have some legal grounds for going after Patrick, whereas those elements in which she places herself at home are her own personal memories of that evening.


I hear two very distinct, contradictory voices in these confused statements. The above, admitted speculation, would explain those two voices.

It would be nice if we had the the actual tapes of the interrogation, then we could judge for ourselves after watchng or listening to the "hotdog getting made".

None of this is at all relevant to Amanda Knox's trial for murder. The statements were ruled inadmissible. They could be helpful to resolving the question slander and whether Amanda "spontaneously" implicated Patrick Lumumba, where these statements are the only basis for the charge.

 

[Grinder]

What language was the "gift", purportedly a statement she authored herself of her own volition, originally written in? Italian? Then she was a quick study, what with knowing to use the key Italian legal phrase* "I wish to spontaneously report what happened".

The 5:45 statement, which I've only seen in English translation from the document submitted into the court files contains the following header:

Date: November 6, 2007, at 5:45 am ....[....] subject [Amanda Knox], who, despite adequately understanding and speaking the Italian language, is assisted by the English-language interpreter Anna Donnino, and who, regarding the death of Meredith Susanna Cara KERCHER, declares as follows...

[highlighting of key phrase]

Anna Donnino later claimed, under oath, in court that she was acting more as a facilitator than as an interpreter in an official capacity.

Truth is, we can't know what language the statement was made in, though given the presence of Anna Donnino acting as a facilitator, and Mignini, acting (as he later was to claim) as a notary, I wouldn't be surprised if, in all the back and forth, a little Italian was included, a little English, some legal boilerplate, some of Anna's suggestions, some police conjecture, some formulaic phrases Mignigni (the notary) required to go ahead an arrest Lumumba, and even some of Amanda Knox's own statements got all mixed up together. It sure reads that way to me.

And then Amanda Knox added her signature...

The notes including the gift were clearly in English. I thought you were referring to the 1:45 and 5:45 statements.

 

[Grinder]

Compare this with the Questura. Basically, there is no comparison. I am not going to list all the differences because they are obvious. It's like a return to the Dark Ages.

Even pre-1994, when there were no tapes, a statement under caution would be a ball-breaking manuscript written out by some hapless detective while his colleague grilled the suspect before getting him to sign each page and initial each (usually quite a few) alterations. In terms of quantity, there would be a ton of paper after a lengthy session like the one Amanda went through.

So I find the two statements surprisingly perfunctory and difficult to reconcile with the objective of eliciting helpful information from a witness or a suspect.

Far be it for me to stand up for how the Italians handled this investigation but the theory of their method has some positives to it.

As I understand how their system is supposed to work is that the 1:45 statement could only be used to make her a suspect at which time the protections of recording and access to legal assistance take effect. Mignini claimed that Amanda insisted on talking to him for the 5:45 statement and should have refused her request because she didn't have a lawyer and he certainly was obligated to record that session.

Some of the problems with this case were that the PLE leaked the contents of the statements and more to the press within hours, Mignini didn't record the second session (that shouldn't have occurred) and Massei circumvented the ruling of Corte Suprema di Cassazione by allowing the two statements into the calunnia trial held simultaneously with the murder trial.

 

[anglolawyer]

Not a problem. Sorry if I misread your post. I'm still learning--fitfully--how to wend my way through and weave my thoughts into this intricate forum discussion that seems to have already been thoroughly raked over. ;-)

My understanding of your argument doesn't hinge on whether the final statement was in Italian or in English, anyway, but on the supposition that an explanation for the conflicting elements, i.e., the two contradictory voices they contain, may be that those elements in which Amanda asserts she was present at the scene of the crime were fed to her by the Perugian police, because they needed to have some legal grounds for going after Patrick, whereas those elements in which she places herself at home are her own personal memories of that evening.


I hear two very distinct, contradictory voices in these confused statements. The above, admitted speculation, would explain those two voices.

It would be nice if we had the the actual tapes of the interrogation, then we could judge for ourselves after watchng or listening to the "hotdog getting made".

None of this is at all relevant to Amanda Knox's trial for murder. The statements were ruled inadmissible. They could be helpful to resolving the question slander and whether Amanda "spontaneously" implicated Patrick Lumumba, where these statements are the only basis for the charge.

My explanation for the transition from the 1.45 to the 5.45 statement is based on strategy. Taking Amanda's innocence as a premise and simplifying so as not to bore peoples' pants off:

Amanda's strategy was to help out and get out of the questura to get some rest as fast as possible. It was decidedly short term and the latter consideration will have weighed more heavily as the night wore on.

The cops' strategy was to deliver a complete and robust case to the lawyers for prosecution. Aside from mopping up and one day turning up in court to give evidence their work is finished once they have the 1.45 'confession'. Their strategy is also short term. To them, it really is case closed the next morning.

Mignini's strategy is decidely long term. It's his job to get a conviction. He is thinkng through the whole process, certainly as far a the first instance trial. The 5.45 statement I see as his handywork, improving on that of the less clued up cops.

 

[Grinder]

I hear two very distinct, contradictory voices in these confused statements. The above, admitted speculation, would explain those two voices.

It would be nice if we had the the actual tapes of the interrogation, then we could judge for ourselves after watchng or listening to the "hotdog getting made".

None of this is at all relevant to Amanda Knox's trial for murder. The statements were ruled inadmissible. They could be helpful to resolving the question slander and whether Amanda "spontaneously" implicated Patrick Lumumba, where these statements are the only basis for the charge.

Except, they were allowed into the murder trial. I would agree that she placed herself at the scene to some extent. It appears the police had said they had evidence that she was at the cottage that night so she was "obligated" to fit what the police "knew to be correct" into her statements in order to satisfy their requirements for cooperation.

If we had the actual recordings, I doubt there would have been a trial.

 

[Bill Williams]

Not a problem. Sorry if I misread your post. I'm still learning--fitfully--how to wend my way through and weave my thoughts into this intricate forum discussion that seems to have already been thoroughly raked over. ;-)

I am a late comer, too, to this conversation - been in it about five months - long enough to have learned a thing or two, but not so long as to have heard everything. The fascinating thing with this is that there are ever new intricacies.... and 5 1/2 months aftert the acquital, everything kust gets worse and worse for the prosecution. That's my take.

You know you've been here too long when things start cycling back over what, for you, becomes old territory. That there have been some here for years is remarkable!

None of this is at all relevant to Amanda Knox's trial for murder. The statements were ruled inadmissible. They could be helpful to resolving the question slander and whether Amanda "spontaneously" implicated Patrick Lumumba, where these statements are the only basis for the charge.

Strangely, though, in a quirk of Italian law, the same jury hears simultaneously the calunnia charge, so the jury trying the murder charge does, in fact, hear the supposedly inadmissable memorandums because they are also the jury for calunnia.

Like not being sequestered and being exposed to the tabloid firestorm, how on earth do they separate themselves? I know I could not.

 

[TomPaine]

The notes including the gift were clearly in English. I thought you were referring to the 1:45 and 5:45 statements.

Whether or what combination of statement(s) Amanda wrote or signed was in Italian or English, originally in English only to be translated into Italian, or vice-versa, wasn't my point. But clearly I've failed to make my point; I'm happy to move on.

 

[TomPaine]

Do you have a particular provision of the code in mind? I would be interested to follow that up.

Because all our different legal systems are mostly addressing the same problems in different ways, and comparisons are useful, I want to briefly describe a lawful police interview here in England and Wales (maybe Scotland too) under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1994. The act radically reformed pre-existing procedures.

Essentially, the interrogation consists of a taped interview, usually in the presence of a lawyer. The tape is switched on, the location and time are stated, those present identify themselves for the tape and a caution is administered to the suspect (right to remain silent, answers may be used in evidence, silence may be a matter for comment) who signifies whether he understands it. Questioning commences, with mandatory breaks if it is a long interrogation.

There are two tapes and one of them is given to the suspect('s lawyer) at the end of the .

In the ensuing proceedings, a full transcript will be supplied by the prosecution, including every 'um' and 'er'. A two hour interview will give rise to a hundred pages or so.

Compare this with the Questura. Basically, there is no comparison. I am not going to list all the differences because they are obvious. It's like a return to the Dark Ages.

Even pre-1994, when there were no tapes, a statement under caution would be a ball-breaking manuscript written out by some hapless detective while his colleague grilled the suspect before getting him to sign each page and initial each (usually quite a few) alterations. In terms of quantity, there would be a ton of paper after a lengthy session like the one Amanda went through.

So I find the two statements surprisingly perfunctory and difficult to reconcile with the objective of eliciting helpful information from a witness or a suspect.

I believe the relevant provisions are found in Article 63 of Italian Code of Criminal Procedure.

 

[Bill Williams]

Except, they were allowed into the murder trial. I would agree that she placed herself at the scene to some extent. It appears the police had said they had evidence that she was at the cottage that night so she was "obligated" to fit what the police "knew to be correct" into her statements in order to satisfy their requirements for cooperation.

If we had the actual recordings, I doubt there would have been a trial.

I am currently being taken to task for reporting things I do not "know", but which I trust. And yes, this is apart from any trust in Frank Sfarzo's sources.

The reason to do this is not for me to crow about me knowing something others might not, although that is a legitimate criticism.

It's just that if I were to have made libelous statements, and I am readily identifiable, the reality of this means that those who have made such statements had better be sheltering their assets (house's etc.) from lawsuit.

This is not a game. This is not some internet intrigue, like FarmVille or some such thing. This involves real people. Sometime I think some fail to appreciate the difference when they post their libel, like taking a stick to a beehive - and then complaining when they get stung.

 

[Dougm]

That is what I think, yes. If you track back a few pages in this threadand look at my detailed comparison of the two english translations of the 1.45 and 5.45 statements you will see what I am on about.. I would link to it but I am pretty useless at ultra high tech stuff like that - oh, hang on, maybe this works

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7984881&postcount=1393

For instance, at 1.45 they are quite happy not to have Raffaele involved. He has, after all, just told them that he cannot vouch for Amanda on the night in question. So she was involved and he wasn't. But by 5.45 they are no longer so sure. Maybe it has occurred to them in the meantime that, after all, Raffaele's behaviour on the morning of 02/11/2007 was sufficiently odd to warrant putting him in the frame too. They have the footprint, drug use, knife fetish etc. - and they don't like the arrogant SOB either, so why not?

If you look at what they got her to sign at 5.45 they tack on, right at the end, that she was 'not sure' whether Raffaele was there that evening. In the first statement she is completely clear that RS was not there. She told him a lie and went out to join up with Patrick. In the second that has disappeared and now she is 'not sure'.

Just for the sake of argument, let's assume neither she nor Raffaele murdered Meredith. Where is this weird uncertainty of hers (only concerning Raffaele, but not at all Lumumba) coming from? Imho, it's coming from the police themselves, whom she is merely trying to 'help'. You can imagine the questions, spread over many hours, reinforced by threats, fatigue, an overwhelming desire to end the process:

C'mon, how can you be sure he wasn't there? Maybe he came along after? We know he was there. He just told us anyway, so what's your problem?

Were these statements used to secure a year's detention at the preliminary hearing in front of Matteini? I assume they were. They were certainly broadcast to the world. Therefore, they did their job. Who cares about admissibility? Mignini managed to get them in front of the court by sleight of hand anyway and he secured a conviction so his strategy paid off up as far as Hellmann.

If you turn up your cynicism quotient to the max when reading these excrescences, assuming yours has the special de luxe turbo booster, it all makes perfect sense.

I disagree with the highlighted portion above. To me, her statements at all times regarding Lumumba are filled with uncertainty, including words like "visions", "confusedly" etc. You do make an interesting point about the inclusion of Raffaele in statement 2, especially since he seems to be tacked on at the end of a statement she clearly did not write herself.

 

[TomPaine]

My explanation for the transition from the 1.45 to the 5.45 statement is based on strategy. Taking Amanda's innocence as a premise and simplifying so as not to bore peoples' pants off:

Amanda's strategy was to help out and get out of the questura to get some rest as fast as possible. It was decidedly short term and the latter consideration will have weighed more heavily as the night wore on.

The cops' strategy was to deliver a complete and robust case to the lawyers for prosecution. Aside from mopping up and one day turning up in court to give evidence their work is finished once they have the 1.45 'confession'. Their strategy is also short term. To them, it really is case closed the next morning.

Mignini's strategy is decidely long term. It's his job to get a conviction. He is thinkng through the whole process, certainly as far a the first instance trial. The 5.45 statement I see as his handywork, improving on that of the less clued up cops.

Setting aside my attempt to gloss your argument, that's how I understood what you were saying. Thanks.

 

[anglolawyer]

I disagree with the highlighted portion above. To me, her statements at all times regarding Lumumba are filled with uncertainty, including words like "visions", "confusedly" etc. You do make an interesting point about the inclusion of Raffaele in statement 2, especially since he seems to be tacked on at the end of a statement she clearly did not write herself.

Then I expressed myself badly. Sorry. She is certain Lumumba was there but highly unclear about Raffaele. I don't see how she can be stoned in such a way as to be clear about one but not the other. So I think it's the police who are not clear. In fact, in her first statement she is clear that Raffaele was not there.

 

[anglolawyer]

I believe the relevant provisions are found in Article 63 of Italian Code of Criminal Procedure.

Thanks for the reference, which I have now looked up. You and christianahannah are absolutely right. How interesting. Now I understand how getting that 'spontaneous' statement out of her was the best Mignini could do. I need to track down some law on how far this concept of 'spontaneous' statements can be stretched. I mean, at one end, there 's the guy who shows up at the police sttion and blurts out, 'I just shot my wife' ( which must be fine) and at the other there is Amanda dictating the 5.45 statement. I am finding it hard to apply the adjective 'spontaneous' to the scene I have in my head so far as that goes.

 

[freeski]

Here's what you wrote: "I am confused. I thought the videotapes had not been released yet. Don't worry, they will be. And when they are, I am sure that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences will back you up."

Here's what Frank wrote: "I’ve got information, by the way, that the tapes still exist. It’s impossible, but it would be wonderful if the Supreme Court would confirm the slander conviction, and then maybe the tapes come out…"


So I'm curious as to how you know that the tapes (recordings) will be released as I don't see where Frank or anybody else in the know said that.

And what's a onsey?

In the comments section on perugiashock http://perugiashock.com/2012/02/16/amanda-knoxs-book-deal/#comments, in response to a message I sent to Frank on Feb 17 he replied,

"I said it, according to the information I have from my sources the tapes exist. If it’s the way it was the other times (the DNA, the starch, etc.) it will be true this time too. I guess they will come out at the right moment…"

I presume "onsey" means "ownsome", as in "on one's own".

 

[Bill Williams]

In the comments section on perugiashock http://perugiashock.com/2012/02/16/amanda-knoxs-book-deal/#comments, in response to a message I sent to Frank on Feb 17 he replied,

"I said it, according to the information I have from my sources the tapes exist. If it’s the way it was the other times (the DNA, the starch, etc.) it will be true this time too. I guess they will come out at the right moment…"

I presume "onsey" means "ownsome", as in "on one's own".

Frank is a tease.

"Onsey", as in onsey, twosey, threesey..... "by one's onsey".

 

[Grinder]

I am currently being taken to task for reporting things I do not "know", but which I trust. And yes, this is apart from any trust in Frank Sfarzo's sources.

So you have undisclosed sources telling you this?

The reason to do this is not for me to crow about me knowing something others might not, although that is a legitimate criticism.

Sorry but this just the kind of stuff the PGP have been putting out for years and I doubt you know anything that "others might not". Perhaps you could explain how you've broken through.

It's just that if I were to have made libelous statements, and I am readily identifiable, the reality of this means that those who have made such statements had better be sheltering their assets (house's etc.) from lawsuit.

Please how are readily identifiable? What statements are libelous that you've made or been accused of being libelous? Bill Williams seems a common name.

This is not a game. This is not some internet intrigue, like FarmVille or some such thing. This involves real people. Sometime I think some fail to appreciate the difference when they post their libel, like taking a stick to a beehive - and then complaining when they get stung.

What in the world does that mean. Who is posting libel and complaining?

You know you've been here too long when things start cycling back over what, for you, becomes old territory. That there have been some here for years is remarkable!

Well Bill had we not stayed for years wewould have missed your breaking the case wide open. We wouldn't have known that the interrogations and the resultant statements were bull. We might have missed Frank's latest article.
Who knows what else.

 

[Grinder]

In the comments section on perugiashock http://perugiashock.com/2012/02/16/amanda-knoxs-book-deal/#comments, in response to a message I sent to Frank on Feb 17 he replied,

"I said it, according to the information I have from my sources the tapes exist. If it’s the way it was the other times (the DNA, the starch, etc.) it will be true this time too. I guess they will come out at the right moment…"

I presume "onsey" means "ownsome", as in "on one's own".

Thanks, Freeski - Frank's is a little more hedged than - don't worry they will be (coming out) - and Bill has informed us that he does in fact have other inside information.

Btw, I would love to see what happened at the interrogation only second to knowing exactly what happened the murder night. I hope Frank is right but throwing it at Mach isn't necessary in the way it was done.

 

[Bill Williams]

These are tragically risky strategies for ALL concerned. All three strategies failed miserably......

My explanation for the transition from the 1.45 to the 5.45 statement is based on strategy. Taking Amanda's innocence as a premise and simplifying so as not to bore peoples' pants off:

Amanda's strategy was to help out and get out of the questura to get some rest as fast as possible. It was decidedly short term and the latter consideration will have weighed more heavily as the night wore on.

Whether because of fatigue, shock at losing a friend, frustration that her "helping" didn't seem to be helping, and tragically/naively unaware that the combination of Raffaele's withdrawal of alibi (whether real or not) combined with the "see you later".... this strategy fails miserably. No, she is not in charge of the cascading tsunami that's about to hit her - it's amazing that PGP see her as in control, giving spontaneous statements so as to throw police off of Rudy Guede.... you also seem to be in general agreement with Hellman about calunnia here.

Does the lack of spontaneity save you from supporting calunnia? It does me. Just asking.....

The cops' strategy was to deliver a complete and robust case to the lawyers for prosecution. Aside from mopping up and one day turning up in court to give evidence their work is finished once they have the 1.45 'confession'. Their strategy is also short term. To them, it really is case closed the next morning.

Yet this is disasterous, too. The 1:45 am "confession" is worthless, and the cops should have known it. Acc. to the CNN interview, no less than Mignini himself lectures them on why - quoting the appropriate law.

If Mignini had arrived to find the 1:45 am confession document signed, and also found her lawyer standing beside her, and the cops hand Mignini the tapes, then that would be a different matter. But would Mignini have continued to try to get the 5:45 am one? The imagined lawyer would have put a stop to it.

Mignini's strategy is decidely long term. It's his job to get a conviction. He is thinkng through the whole process, certainly as far a the first instance trial. The 5.45 statement I see as his handywork, improving on that of the less clued up cops.

Yet Mignini, by his own admission in the CNN interview, adopts a dangerous, if not disasterous-to-his-agenda strategy to achieve it. After lecturing the cops on the shortcomings of their method, he proceeds to do exactly the same thing.

The best that can be said, is that Mignini was betting that two memorandums would either stand or fall together. However, it was a stroke of luck Mignini had not counted on, that makes us - 4 1/4 years later - even talk about them.

They are admissible to the same jury by the back door of calunnia! Am I conspiratorial enough to suspect that this is the whole reason for calunnia to be advanced?

If some PGP can conspiratorialize it so that Knox left Seattle in August 2007 trying to engineer a $4M future book deal, then I can conspiratorialize it this way.....

..... that the whole reason they rushed out to get Lumumba before the ink was dry on the first Memorial, was that they KNEW he'd eventually be replaced by Guede, they KNEW the memorials would not be admissible to the murder charges, but......

..... they also KNEW they'd be eventually heard at trial because of the pairing with the inevitable calunnia which Lumumba would necessarily bring.

Is THAT too conspiratorial?

 

[Bill Williams]

Please how are readily identifiable? What statements are libelous that you've made or been accused of being libelous? Bill Williams seems a common name.

I think we're miscommunicating. I am NOT saying I am in harm's way, I am saying that those who have been saying what they've been saying about Knox and Sollecito being guilty (and worse) are in harm's way. Witness the recent changing of the title of Barbie Nadeau's book. No more "Student Killer," in the title, although the content of the book remains unchanged.

Nadeau's publisher is receiving great legal advice..... people who continue post the ugliness they post are not.

What in the world does that mean. Who is posting libel and complaining?

On other sites there is terrible libel - they've been warned, and the person doing the warning has actually been banned for doing it. They regard warnings as uttering threats - it is meant as friendly advice; it actually also records that "they've been warned", and cannot claim ignorance at what I am assuming is a future trial where their personal assets are suddenly going to be in play.

I am not for a minute saying that what you or I is posting is libellous, nor is warning someone of libel - even if mistaken - itself libellous. (However, if someone knows different on that particular nuance, I will retract and apologize.)

Well Bill had we not stayed for years wewould have missed your breaking the case wide open. We wouldn't have known that the interrogations and the resultant statements were bull. We might have missed Frank's latest article.
Who knows what else.

I am not claiming special knowledge, nor am I claiming sources unavailable to those who care to look. As for me, I am one who only recently found out that the interrogatiions were bull.... and I have put ALL of that into writing here, and have been held accountable for it.

Up until reading the CNN interview with Mignini, I regarded Knox liable for calunnia - not that I ever really understood calunnia! - but the clincher for me (and where I caught up with you, albeit for a differing reason) was reading Mignini's lies, in his own voice, about acting "only as a notary", right there in black and white.

And the source of this English language translation was none other than Peggy Ganong and Peter Quennell, not exactly Friends of Amanda! So it could not be said to be done from some anti-Mignini motive - yet there it was for all to see.

It took me a while to dig it out, that's all I am saying. I am definitely not claiming special knowledge, nor am I crowning that I have busted this case: the case itself has long since been busted - strangely as even Barbie Nadeau herself said to CNN the day after the Dec 2009 conviction......

...... she said, "The prosecution case was weak, but the defense case was weaker, and at the end of the day the jury/judges believed the prosecution. This could very well be overturned on appeal," which it was. You can argue with that assessment, but Nadeau begins to look like the Oracle at Delphi on this - say what you want about her, but she knows Italy!

The purpose of this post is to let people know that there is virtual certainty on the last item of lingering doubt, the nature of the interrogation, coming out. That's all.

And the burden of proof will be on those who claim to have been slandered - ie. Knox and Sollecito will claim to have, themselves, been slandered on the internet by various sites, and the doubts regarding the interrogation will no longer be a place to hide.

That's all. I am not claiming to have busted this case. Their innocence is obvious. What is now at issue is what will come in the legal arena. I hope this clears up what to me is an obvious miscommunication we're having.