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

[Katody Matrass]

Thank you Rose. You and I are the only ones still on the case.

I wanted to add that we now need a bat-poo/pooh PGP theory to explain why Amanda would invent this story for her mother's benefit. I actually don't dare to read the thread because I know someone will come up with something utterly inane, post it with passive-aggressive insouciance and leave me seething.

I don't get it. Why would she admit deleting that message herself in her trial hearing if the cops deleted it?

 

[anglolawyer]

I don't get it. Why would she admit deleting that message herself in her trial hearing if the cops deleted it?

You tell me. There is no doubt the cops deleted it. Take just three points:

1 at 1.45 a.m. Amanda recorded in her statement what Lumumba's message said but at 5.45 all reference to that point had gone.

2 four days later she tells her mother how she came to remember - the cops showed her the message

3 at the press conference on 06 Nov it slipped out that the cops had shown her the text (remember the article LJ posted and everyone here hand-waved away).

The mystery is why she gave the evidence she did, not who deleted the text. It has been suggested to me she forgot but I think she lied and that's because of the way she hesitated when giving the evidence. However, that's just my gut and amounts to very little. If you want to believe her evidence go ahead, but explain what she said in the call that took place only four days later.

ETA a possibility is that her defence strategy was to avoid any imputation of impropriety to the cops, other than the blows to the head for which, of course, she has been sued. So, all the discussion about DNA revolves around 'contamination'. There is no suggestion anywhere in the defence appeals of corruption. I suspect the lawyers thought they would forfeit all sympathy if they out and out accused the cops of inventing evidence. A cuff to the head by an unknown person (another lie?) is one thing but destroying exculpatory evidence is another ball park.

 

[RoseMontague]

The cops probably gave the phone to the computer expert. It is a wonder all of it wasn't wiped clean.

 

[Katody Matrass]

You tell me. There is no doubt the cops deleted it. Take just three points:

1 at 1.45 a.m. Amanda recorded in her statement what Lumumba's message said but at 5.45 all reference to that point had gone.

2 four days later she tells her mother how she came to remember - the cops showed her the message

3 at the press conference on 06 Nov it slipped out that the cops had shown her the text (remember the article LJ posted and everyone here hand-waved away).

The mystery is why she gave the evidence she did, not who deleted the text. It has been suggested to me she forgot but I think she lied and that's because of the way she hesitated when giving the evidence. However, that's just my gut and amounts to very little. If you want to believe her evidence go ahead, but explain what she said in the call that took place only four days later.

I have hard time thinking for any reason she would lie about it in court.

OTOH I have no problem explaining the bugged conversation transcript , when she says "they showed me the message" she means the message she sent. That's consistent with what she was describing in the court all the time.

 

[anglolawyer]

I have hard time thinking for any reason she would lie about it in court.

OTOH I have no problem explaining the bugged conversation transcript , when she says "they showed me the message" she means the message she sent. That's consistent with what she was describing in the court all the time.

There's always one. Read what she told mum one more time:

can you show me the message that I received from Patrick?![‘] Because I don’t remember having replied to him, and so they showed me the message

Why would an Amanda who was in the habit of deleting her incoming texts ask this question? Anyhow, please read my ETA above.

 

[Katody Matrass]

There's always one. Read what she told mum one more time:

Why would an Amanda who was in the habit of deleting her incoming texts ask this question? Anyhow, please read my ETA above.

Maybe she misspoke, maybe there's a translation error ( I think the transcript you quote went from informal spoken English to formal Italian and back again into PMF-English) or maybe she really asked them that and they in return showed her the message that was on her phone - the one she sent?

I really can't see this as realistic - them going through the SMSes, finding Patrick's message saying "don't come to work because business is slow" and not realising that maybe arresting him on that is not a good idea because it seems he has an alibi of being at work? I can believe they misinterpreted the "see you later", but what about that? Did they think it was some sort of a secret code? Maybe I grant them too much but I simply can't believe them being that moronic.

There is no suggestion anywhere in the defence appeals of corruption.

True, however in court there were some suggestions during the final arguments, from what I remember. It makes sense to suggest it to jury, put it on paper without evidence - not so much.

Anyway, incorporating such a lie implies that basically most of what she officially told about the interrogation is invented. I can't agree with that.

She stuck to her version throughout the december 2007 hearing, her pretrial statement in court in 2008 and so on. With the accusation of physical abuse the cat was out of the bag anyway so I see no advantage in it at all. If they got away with destroying the hard drives, why would anyone take their "accidentally" deleting an SMS any more seriously?

In fact I see a serious disadvantage in such a lie. The fact that they knew the incoming message not just the outgoing reply yet still misinterpreted it would work in favour of Amanda. Anyway it was all word against word. After all they claimed she's lying about everything that happened at the questura that night, why would she cover for them in that aspect only?

 

[Grinder]

I'm with Katody the only other person except me still on the case that makes sense.

Amanda isn't the clearest when speaking., perhaps part of the reason she's been through the last 5 years. She's the Galati of common folk.

The police told me I replied to his message but I could remember replying and asked to see the message. Don't forget you are most likely reading something that was translated from the English to Italianand back to English.

I'm sorry but it makes no sense that the police would have done that unless they thought that Patrick was innocent and they still wanted to arrest him. I can't buy the idea that they had this incoming message but figured it would give them a logical reason for the reply but said "screw it this way we can really get them" and someone would have talked.

I thought part of the theory is that the cell company had already provided them with the messages and certainly they could provide them after the fact.

 

[Grinder]

They are discussing someone called Shaky then Amanda starts talking on her mobile phone. She says " I was the only one who was with her so they want to squeeze my brain to make me say things...They asked me to remember who came to the house, who met her. "

Is it just me or does the first line suggest she's admitting to being with Meredith in the house that night? I know that she is discussing her police interviews with someone on the phone, but it's a curious thing to say. Could she have been in the house with Meredith when they received a visitor or visitors? Perhaps another question to put to her?

Here is a counterpart of you Anglo at the PGP site and she has the same issue with a translation which another PGPer astutely points out was an English to Italian back to English example.

Obviously Amanda wasn't saying she was at the murder house.

 

[anglolawyer]

Maybe she misspoke, maybe there's a translation error ( I think the transcript you quote went from informal spoken English to formal Italian and back again into PMF-English) or maybe she really asked them that and they in return showed her the message that was on her phone - the one she sent?

Translation error? She was talking to her mother in English. Or are you saying Galati has filed an Italian version which PMF have mis-translated back into English? Presumably the original transcript of this conversation is in evidence somewhere and we can check. It's interesting, reading on in Galati, that he renders the conversation thus:

From the words of the accused, it can be inferred that, at a certain point, everyone who had been participating in the ‚interrogation‛, as the CAA calls it, went out, leaving a ‚police officer‛ who invited Ms Knox to remember; then she asked him to show the reply message to Patrick, Ms Knox not remembering having replied, and it was then that Ms Knox accused Lumumba.

I really can't see this as realistic - them going through the SMSes, finding Patrick's message saying "don't come to work because business is slow" and not realising that maybe arresting him on that is not a good idea because it seems he has an alibi of being at work? I can believe they misinterpreted the "see you later", but what about that? Did they think it was some sort of a secret code? Maybe I grant them too much but I simply can't believe them being that moronic.

But this is what was in the 1.45 statement. I guess you don't buy my other theory, which is that they had already identified Patrick as their man before the interrogations began. But think about the 1.45 statement. The story that makes no sense to you is right there in black and white. She says she got a message saying 'no customers' and she immediately told Raffaele a lie and went out to meet Patrick. You need to know my other other theory that the two 'confessions' record, in the first, what the cops already 'knew' and in the second a better version containing some tactical improvements.

True, however in court there were some suggestions during the final arguments, from what I remember. It makes sense to suggest it to jury, put it on paper without evidence - not so much.

It is a major feature that the defence teams stopped short of making accusations of corruption. This may be no more than a predictable side-effect of Italian laws which allow deliberate lying but criminalise criticism of corrupt cops.

Anyway, incorporating such a lie implies that basically most of what she officially told about the interrogation is invented. I can't agree with that.

No it doesn't. It involves a very minor change.

She stuck to her version throughout the december 2007 hearing, her pretrial statement in court in 2008 and so on. With the accusation of physical abuse the cat was out of the bag anyway so I see no advantage in it at all. If they got away with destroying the hard drives, why would anyone take their "accidentally" deleting an SMS any more seriously?

Is there a transcript from this hearing? Like I said, a harmless cuff is several levels below deliberate destruction of evidence. Your last sentence could have been written by me. EDIT I see the point you are making, on re-reading. Accidentally deleting a text is a little harder to expain, I think, especially since the officers would be left with both a note and a recollection of the content.

In fact I see a serious disadvantage in such a lie. The fact that they knew the incoming message not just the outgoing reply yet still misinterpreted it would work in favour of Amanda. Anyway it was all word against word. After all they claimed she's lying about everything that happened at the questura that night, why would she cover for them in that aspect only?

Because by directly accusing them in front of Massei's court of destroying evidence would attract more incoming and turn the trial into a binary question of whether the cops were corrupt or she was a murderer.

 

[anglolawyer]

I'm with Katody the only other person except me still on the case that makes sense.

Amanda isn't the clearest when speaking., perhaps part of the reason she's been through the last 5 years. She's the Galati of common folk.

The police told me I replied to his message but I could remember replying and asked to see the message. Don't forget you are most likely reading something that was translated from the English to Italianand back to English.

I'm sorry but it makes no sense that the police would have done that unless they thought that Patrick was innocent and they still wanted to arrest him. I can't buy the idea that they had this incoming message but figured it would give them a logical reason for the reply but said "screw it this way we can really get them" and someone would have talked.

I thought part of the theory is that the cell company had already provided them with the messages and certainly they could provide them after the fact.

Well, I take the translation point but I will bet money that when someone turns up the original transcript it will still say they showed her Lumumba's text. As the cops themselves said to the press on the day of the arrest . What more do you want? You are not looking at the 1.45 statement and asking why it contains reference to what Lumumba really texted. Please explain that and explain why that part of the story disappears at 5.45.

The cops knew Lumumba was guilty. They had a perfect jigsaw in which all the pieces fit. His text struck a jarring note so the stupid morons just deleted it. The same day the same morons plucked the 'extremely clean' kitchen knife from Raffaele's draw. Do you think that was a bona fide piece of detective work? The next day they found a witness to swear that Patrick's bar was closed when it was not. How about that?

You have also seen how the case has played out over the ensuing 5+ years. A few posts above you are gaily suggesting the bra clasp evidence was fabricated. Consider the very profound implications. It's the same people Grinder.

 

[Grinder]

Well, I take the translation point but I will bet money that when someone turns up the original transcript it will still say they showed her Lumumba's text. As the cops themselves said to the press on the day of the arrest . What more do you want? You are not looking at the 1.45 statement and asking why it contains reference to what Lumumba really texted. Please explain that and explain why that part of the story disappears at 5.45.

After showing her the SMS she sent she remembered what Patrick had said or she may well have remembered that from the start. I would bet that she had told the cops from the first day that her boss had texted her not to come to work. You could read her email of Nov. 4 and see if she mentions it there.

I once again appeal to their incompetence. It is the middle of the night. some of the original cops in the interrogation may well have gone home or out to get something to eat if they have all-night cafes.

I'll look later but I just don't think dropping the incoming means much at 5:45.

The cops knew Lumumba was guilty. They had a perfect jigsaw in which all the pieces fit. His text struck a jarring note so the stupid morons just deleted it. The same day the same morons plucked the 'extremely clean' kitchen knife from Raffaele's draw. Do you think that was a bona fide piece of detective work? The next day they found a witness to swear that Patrick's bar was closed when it was not. How about that?

I do think they were quite sure it was Patrick. i see no reason for them to delete the text. You haven't answered whether the phone company keeps texts on file. I think they do. I believe others if not you have speculated they had the text before the interrogation from the phone company. Are you saying that the PLE involved the phone company and had them delete the message from their records? At that time? Just don't buy it.

I don't know about the knife but always thought it odd as reported.

I think some schmol wanted to help and topld them what they wanted to hear. It was all in the press by then.

You have also seen how the case has played out over the ensuing 5+ years. A few posts above you are gaily suggesting the bra clasp evidence was fabricated. Consider the very profound implications. It's the same people Grinder.

Yes but the bra incident happened 47 days afterwards and at a time that all what they had hoped for had disappeared. And it wasn't gaily but rather measured and I didn't actually make the accusation .

They, by that time, had vested interest in the case that didn't exist the night of Nov. 5 to 6.

 

[anglolawyer]

After showing her the SMS she sent she remembered what Patrick had said or she may well have remembered that from the start. I would bet that she had told the cops from the first day that her boss had texted her not to come to work. You could read her email of Nov. 4 and see if she mentions it there.

You are not thinking yourself into her shoes properly. You want her email to explain how she could not possibly be guilty or to give a self-absorbed and detailed account of what she was doing before she had the faintest idea anyone suspected her of anything. I looked at Nina Burleigh's account, in lieu of the complete text which is not to hand. Burleigh says she devoted just one sentence to what she and Raffaele did that evening and unsurprisingly found no room at all to digress into the exchange of texts with Patrick. I would bet she did not tell the cops about the texts and I would further bet they made a point of asking her nothing about them until the night of the 5th-6th.

I once again appeal to their incompetence. It is the middle of the night. some of the original cops in the interrogation may well have gone home or out to get something to eat if they have all-night cafes.

Again we disagree. This was a planned operation to get an admission of what they already knew.

I'll look later but I just don't think dropping the incoming means much at 5:45.

It means everything.

I do think they were quite sure it was Patrick.

Now we're getting somewhere.

i see no reason for them to delete the text. You haven't answered whether the phone company keeps texts on file. I think they do. I believe others if not you have speculated they had the text before the interrogation from the phone company. Are you saying that the PLE involved the phone company and had them delete the message from their records? At that time? Just don't buy it.

Right, kindlekitten at IIP maintains the cops could access the actual messages from the phone companies and LJ maintains the opposite. Without questioning the knowledge of either, I now prefer to think they did not know the content, only the timing and that the timing was a huge factor. When they saw Amanda's message said 'see you later' they felt they had won the Super Bowl and could not see anything else. The 'see you later' blotted everything out. Ever heard of something called 'confirmation bias'? You're looking at it.

I don't know about the knife but always thought it odd as reported.

Follow your thinking through. If the knife was taken with a view to fabrication of evidence against Amanda (possible, right?) what does it say about the people conducting this enquiry?

I think some schmol wanted to help and topld them what they wanted to hear. It was all in the press by then.

It would be good to know more about Pasquale. If they could get the evidence they wanted out of the professional witnesses then why not Pasquale? All things are possible. They certainly seem to gave been very quickly satisfied with the results of their enquiries.

Yes but the bra incident happened 47 days afterwards and at a time that all what they had hoped for had disappeared. And it wasn't gaily but rather measured and I didn't actually make the accusation .

Oh, it was pretty gay alright. Does anyone else think it was gay? I thought it was. And if not gay, then blithe.

They, by that time, had vested interest in the case that didn't exist the night of Nov. 5 to 6.

Very neat. The investment started much earlier.

 

[Grinder]

Text messages definitely can be retrieved from the cell carrier in some cases for sure. Here it is required to go through the courts to get to them. A Detroit mayor was brought down by text messages and I'm sure they weren't left on his phone.

I wished the defense would make the tapped phone calls and recorded conversations available through IIP or someplace. We really can't know any subtleties when the conversations have gone through two translations.

Even if they were fabricating evidence, it would seem odd that they only took one knife.

Perhaps you'll have to explain gay in old English

 

[anglolawyer]

Text messages definitely can be retrieved from the cell carrier in some cases for sure. Here it is required to go through the courts to get to them. A Detroit mayor was brought down by text messages and I'm sure they weren't left on his phone.

I wished the defense would make the tapped phone calls and recorded conversations available through IIP or someplace. We really can't know any subtleties when the conversations have gone through two translations.

Even if they were fabricating evidence, it would seem odd that they only took one knife.

Perhaps you'll have to explain gay in old English

I think they took more than one knife but not many. LJ will show up any minute on the text message think and I'll take a back seat. I just want to know.

 

[Grinder]

I think they took more than one knife but not many. LJ will show up any minute on the text message think and I'll take a back seat. I just want to know.

I've heard it both ways on the knife.

Yippee.

 

[Grinder]

Go back and look at the articles about ole Nappy and I think you'll find that the prosecution has their text message content about the inquiry and how they had helped her out and she replied. One would think that she would hav ejust erased their messages and made sure they too erased them. however, if she knew the Italian carrier retained the records she would, as she did, send back a message saying "I never asked you for anything, what are you talking about"

Here's a snapshot for subscribers of the four major carriers' policies, each with differing lengths of time for how long they keep data:

Verizon: Keeps records of calls and cell towers used for a year; text message details are retained for up to one year, actual text message content between 3 to 5 days; Internet session information for up to a year, and Web sites visited for up to 90 days.
AT&T: Stores call records for between 5 to 7 years; cell tower records since July 2008; text message details for between 5 to 7 years; text message content is not retained; Internet session information and destinations for up to 72 hours.
Sprint: Hangs onto call records and cell tower records for between 18 and 24 months. Internet session and destination info for up to 60 days; text message details for up to 18 months, depending on the device; text message content not retained; Internet session info and destination info for up to 60 days.
T-Mobile: Retains call record details for 5 years; cell towers used, "officially, 4-6 months, really a year or more;" text message details 5 years; text message content, not kept; Internet session and destination info is not kept.

ETA - On December 17, the two junior officers were called to meet with the Prosecutor. Not knowing what it was about they texted Napoleoni speculating that it might be about "something we did for you" and "asking for directions on how to respond." Napoleoni answered, "What? When did you do this? I never asked... I'm not crazy."

There you have it. It is perfectly clear that the text messages are saved or Napoleoni wouldn't have handled it the way she did.

Case closed

 

[RWVBWL]

Why not?...

<snip>
In order for his testimony to have narrowed done the couple to A & R he would have needed to ID them in a line up or at least have described them in the days after the murder not months.<snip>

Hiya Grinder, and everyone else,
I still check in here sometimes and noticed this of which I hi-lited above, right off the bat!


Have you ever witnessed a crime?
Have you ever helped the cops capture a suspect after a crime was committed?
Have you ever gone before a judge or a probation officer and spoke of what you saw?

Antonio Curatolo had.
The heroin-using, cocaine-selling, park bench bum,
who had already been a witness in 2 previous murder trials,
should have, in my humble opinion, at the least told the police that he saw a couple last night hanging around outside last night on a cold, windy night.


He did see the police investigation going on!

Esh, I have been a witnes before,
and after giving the cops a decent description of the alleged suspects,
I been driven around Santa Monica lookin' for the perps...


The case we have been discussing for quite a few years now had important ramifications for the local Perugian college town,
I feel.

What,
a foreign college student was murdered?
Better not send Junior or MY daughter to Perugia!

Didn't ALL of the English girls bail back home immediately?!?


Surely the Mignini and the cops knew that this murder was not just a run of the mill murder, the damage to Peruga's reputation as a safe place to study was at stake!

Marshall that Flyin' Squad, get the best of the best to crack this brutal bloody murder!

Check any and all securtiy camera!
Interview all of the locals, especially the street people!
Did ya see anything? Hear anything?
Don't forget Curatolo, he's out there all night,
maybe he heard or saw something,
heck he's helped us send 2 murderers to jail!

And yet for some reason Curatolo did not go on a drive around town lookin' for 1 of the most easily recognizable suspects of that time period: A Harry Potter look-alike!!!

Why not?...

RW

 

[Katody Matrass]

From Amanda's testimony

I told them that I had received a message from Patrick, and they looked for it in the telephone, but they couldn't find it, but they found the one I sent to him.

Now I begin to think it's possible they've seen that message and deleted it. But I'm sure if the cops deleted the message they didn't let her know about it.

 

[Grinder]

From Amanda's testimony

I told them that I had received a message from Patrick, and they looked for it in the telephone, but they couldn't find it, but they found the one I sent to him.

Now I begin to think it's possible they've seen that message and deleted it. But I'm sure if the cops deleted the message they didn't let her know about it.

At some point she said she deleted all incoming texts but wasn't aware that outgoing texts were on the phone

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Italy's ex-intelligence chief given 10-year sentence for role in CIA kidnapping

An interesting and I think relevant article from the Guardian newspaper. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/13/italy-cia-rendition-abu-omar