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

[Grinder]

Anglo - I think you place way too much stock in the 5:45 spontaneous statement not referring to the incoming message. The incoming message had no value to them no matter what it said, unless it was "let's meet-up right away so that I can be let in and do Meredith".

I never read anything being in that text except that she need not come in to work.

The issues the police had with A & R were with their accounting for their whereabouts during the murder time and asking about her work would have been part of it. Given that she was my most accounts other than the PGP a suspect well before the interrogation, it makes no sense that they wouldn't be focusing on them and only on other friends.

If the cops had maintained that the incoming message was of a more nefarious nature, I could see your point but it wasn't. The message of "no work tonight" followed by "good we'll get together tonight then" was enough for the cops the judges and everyone.

 

[anglolawyer]

Anglo - I think you place way too much stock in the 5:45 spontaneous statement not referring to the incoming message. The incoming message had no value to them no matter what it said, unless it was "let's meet-up right away so that I can be let in and do Meredith".

I never read anything being in that text except that she need not come in to work.

The issues the police had with A & R were with their accounting for their whereabouts during the murder time and asking about her work would have been part of it. Given that she was my most accounts other than the PGP a suspect well before the interrogation, it makes no sense that they wouldn't be focusing on them and only on other friends.

If the cops had maintained that the incoming message was of a more nefarious nature, I could see your point but it wasn't. The message of "no work tonight" followed by "good we'll get together tonight then" was enough for the cops the judges and everyone.

This is completely incorrect! Matteini viewed it as a 'grave indication of guilt' that Amanda and Patrick could not agree about what the message said. They diverged as to whether it said 'bar closed' or 'no customers' and the prosecution made a big deal out of this on 08 Nov. In fact, I am adding this point to the pile, now you mention it.

 

[Grinder]

This is completely incorrect! Matteini viewed it as a 'grave indication of guilt' that Amanda and Patrick could not agree about what the message said. They diverged as to whether it said 'bar closed' or 'no customers' and the prosecution made a big deal out of this on 08 Nov. In fact, I am adding this point to the pile, now you mention it.

I not going to look it up but it is absolutely absurd that Matteini would put any stock into it. How would Raffaele know what it said and why would it matter?

At best Amanda would have told him what the message said and people get things wrong a little all the time. At worst she would have told him she didn't need to go in and he could imagine why.

The only thing sillier than Matteini making the call is that the police helped it my deleting the message and they anticipated that.

 

[anglolawyer]

I not going to look it up but it is absolutely absurd that Matteini would put any stock into it. How would Raffaele know what it said and why would it matter?

At best Amanda would have told him what the message said and people get things wrong a little all the time. At worst she would have told him she didn't need to go in and he could imagine why.

The only thing sillier than Matteini making the call is that the police helped it my deleting the message and they anticipated that.

You misunderstand. It was Lumumba and Amanda who diverged, not Raffaele and Amanda. Look again at what De Felice said:

He [De Felice] said Knox's claims that she was elsewhere had been demonstrated to be false. The police found text messages on her phone from Lumumba, fixing a meeting between them at 8.35pm on the night Miss Kercher died.

Fixing a meeting.

That was the case they ran before Matteini and in support of it they argued, and she accepted, that the fact Amanda and Patrick could not agree whether he said 'bar closed' or 'no customer's' cast doubt on their versions of his message. Now you see why it is puzzling that the 1.45 confession records this banal (and true) fact about the message and it is for you to explain it. I have no problems at all as it fits what I am saying just fine. You also need to explain the elision of the text from the 5.45 and the way things played out in front of Matteini.

And just in case anyone misunderstands, I am suggesting the cops deleted the message deliberately because it did not fit their theory and that they ran a deliberately dishonest case before Matteini in which they allowed her to draw an unfavourable inference from a tiny difference in recollection they knew to be immaterial.

ETA and I did in fact say 'Amanda and Patrick' in the post to which you replied, not 'Amanda and Raffaele'. Please sit up at the back.

 

[Grinder]

Yes, you are correct about something.

I didn't read carefully enough. I'm sorry. Mea culpa.

 

[Katody Matrass]

What do you mean? The 5.45 'confession' tells a completely different story altogether. Aren't you aware of this?

Let's say the cops had only Amanda's recollection of the message, not the message itself. What's wrong with that?

No I don't. I want him to be unintentionally revealing, which is what he was both with respect to this and the other remark - she told us what we already knew (or perhaps you think it was good idea for him to say this?)

Or maybe he unintentionally reveals they didn't have the message? After all we agree he made up it's contents.

I don't know why you are parroting this nonsense. Read Galati, listen to her testimony again. And no one is asking you to have confidence in the cops, certainly not me.

Well, I listened and read her testimony and the picture I'm taking of the interrogation is that she believed they didn't find the message to Patrick, only the one she sent. That makes sense to me.

You are over fond of the word 'logical' where it has no place. What I said is correct and borne out by the facts. We are discussing the imperfect recollections of someone we happen to have very good reason to know to be suggestible. She said one thing at one time and another at another. She never says anywhere that she specifically deleted that message. Her belief that she did is only inferential. OTOH she says, at least twice, that Lumumba's message was found by the cops.

In the court testimony she's quite clear the the single message they found was to Patrick not from him. I can't say the single sentence you want to interpret otherwise is as unequivocal - it's vague at best and in fact when put to context it means the opposite of what you think. You really need to read the whole transcript of the questioning.

 

[anglolawyer]

Yes, you are correct about something.

I didn't read carefully enough. I'm sorry. Mea culpa.

Apology rejected unless you go on and consider the implications of how the cops played it. Second thoughts, we're quits. I had forgotten Matteini. I'll find a way to work her into The Theory.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

credible

Do you dispute that most accounts have her requesting to speak with Mignini? Is demanding too strong a word?

I would have to survey the various accounts. Taking it as a given that most reports indicated she requested it for argument's sake, I would still say that no credible source says that she did.
EDT
I find it more credible that ILE browbeat her into making an additional statement than I find it credible that she requested it.

 

[anglolawyer]

Let's say the cops had only Amanda's recollection of the message, not the message itself. What's wrong with that?

Good question. What's wrong with it depends on your view of the interrogations which allow more than one interpretation. The PGPs say the little minx was cleverly, or desperately, misdirecting the cops to get the pressure of herself (they have a point - Hellman convicted her of precisely this).

I maintain they forced out of her their narrative. They did it twice: once at 1.45 and once at 5.45. Since Lumumba's text did not fit their crime theory why would they let her stick to just that one accurate part of the story when the rest is wall-to-wall crap? The answer may be that by 1.45 they had not worked out how to deal with what they had only just discovered. They had the 'see you later' part (Eureka!) but not the 'meet me now' bit. After 1.45 they went into a huddle, erased the text from the phone and had another stab, resulting in an improved and completely different version. The differences should be studied because they reflect other advances in their thinking in the small hours.

Or maybe he unintentionally reveals they didn't have the message? After all we agree he made up it's contents.

By saying they had seen it? To the world's press? Again, where is the evidence that Lumumba fixed up a meeting?

Well, I listened and read her testimony and the picture I'm taking of the interrogation is that she believed they didn't find the message to Patrick, only the one she sent. That makes sense to me.

But then you're the one who posted a segment which contained a statement directly contrary to your existing understanding of her evidence, so maybe your judgment unsound? While you are talking about 'a picture' I am referring to a fact of which she gave direct evidence.

In the court testimony she's quite clear the the single message they found was to Patrick not from him. I can't say the single sentence you want to interpret otherwise is as unequivocal - it's vague at best and in fact when put to context it means the opposite of what you think. You really need to read the whole transcript of the questioning.

Vague at best, huh? Sure.

 

[Malkmus]

Do you dispute that most accounts have her requesting to speak with Mignini? Is demanding too strong a word?

By whose accounts? Posters on PMF?

Before Mignini did his CNN interview Michael pulled that notion out of thin air. He even had Mignini sleeping at home when Amanda demanded to be spoken to. Since then we've learned that he was at the station the entire time and was called down when Raf broke her alibi. There is not one credible source saying she asked to give another statement.

Mignini: "I remember that I had gone to sleep and the director of the flying squad, Dr. Profazio, called me, because he tells me: “There are developments; Raffaele in fact has denied what he had said before”. So I went down."

That is at least how Mignini adds himself to the interrogations. One would certainly think that if she asked to make another statement Mignini would have at least said so. I think, rather, this misconception was borne from the early days of bad translations and Michael's penchant for storytelling.

It doesn't take much to figure out that Mignini realized he "needed" her to restate what she'd said but as a suspect so he could arrest her.

 

[Grinder]

By whose accounts? Posters on PMF?

That is at least how Mignini adds himself to the interrogations. One would certainly think that if she asked to make another statement Mignini would have at least said so. I think, rather, this misconception was borne from the early days of bad translations and Michael's penchant for storytelling.

It doesn't take much to figure out that Mignini realized he "needed" her to restate what she'd said but as a suspect so he could arrest her.

Fine - There was wide spread reports at the time but it really means little since the 6th note was handwritten by her and the second statement received no more credibility than the first.

It's odd that the second statement isn't covered at IIP at least in the section on the statements or illegal interrogations but they do cover the note of the 6th. It is very strange that they don't protest the second interrogation specifically. Before responding that isn't proof of anything but odd there is no mention there or at FOA that I can find quickly.

This statement from FOA

The police questioned Amanda and Raffaele repeatedly as witnesses over the next few days. Both gave the same account of their activities and whereabouts. But on the night of November 5-6, the two were pulled into separate rooms and subjected to more aggressive interrogations. Under intense pressure, they changed their accounts.

Asked for days about what they were doing including not going to work I'd guess.

Finally, after a long and grueling interrogation, she yielded to police demands by describing an imaginary dream or vision. In this vision, she was in the kitchen covering her ears to block out screams while the man she worked for, Patrick Lumumba, was in Meredith's bedroom.

It was completely untrue, but it was what the police wanted to hear.

As Perugia's chief of police told Newsweek magazine, "she buckled."

A few hours later, after Amanda got some rest and had time to think, she wrote a note to the police in which she attempted to reconcile what she had said with what she thought was the truth.

Here again FOA just skips over the second, Mignini, interrogation.

Odd, just odd.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I maintain they forced out of her their narrative. They did it twice: once at 1.45 and once at 5.45. Since Lumumba's text did not fit their crime theory why would they let her stick to just that one accurate part of the story when the rest is wall-to-wall crap? The answer may be that by 1.45 they had not worked out how to deal with what they had only just discovered. They had the 'see you later' part (Eureka!) but not the 'meet me now' bit. After 1.45 they went into a huddle, erased the text from the phone and had another stab, resulting in an improved and completely different version. The differences should be studied because they reflect other advances in their thinking in the small hours.

All good, but all of the above doesn't depend in any way on whether they knew what was in Lumumba's SMS first hand or only by Amanda's words.

By saying they had seen it? To the world's press? Again, where is the evidence that Lumumba fixed up a meeting?

He's lying about the contents, it may very well mean they didn't see the SMS at all. Anyway it gives you nothing.

But then you're the one who posted a segment which contained a statement directly contrary to your existing understanding of her evidence, so maybe your judgment unsound? While you are talking about 'a picture' I am referring to a fact of which she gave direct evidence.

Yes, because you want it out of context. To me it's not a fact, it's a single sentence that only when taken out of context can be interpreted your way.

I'm looking at her story of the interrogation that she told in court during her testimony and earlier in front of Micheli. In her version the issue of the SMS comes out when she insists she didn't go out anywhere, she didn't have to go to work because she received a message from Patrick. She gives them her phone to check, and they find instead the reply and start grilling her about it.

I didn't go out. "Yes, you did go out.
Who were you with?" I don't know. I didn't do anything. "Why didn't you
go to work?" Because my boss told me I didn't have to go to work. "Let's see
your telephone to see if you have that message." Sure, take it. "All right."
So one policeman took it, and started looking in it, while the others kept
on yelling "We know you met someone, somehow, but why did you meet someone?"
But I kept saying no, no, I didn't go out, I'm not pro[tecting]
GCM: Excuse me, okay, we understand that
there was a continuous crescendo.

AK: Yes.

GCM: As you said earlier. But if we could now get to the questions of the
pubblico ministero, otherwise it will really be impossible to avoid some
interruptions. If you want to be able to continue as tranquilly, as
continuously as possible...

AK: Okay, I'm sorry.

GCM: So, if you could get to the questions about exactly when, exactly who...
these suggestions, exactly what did they consist in? It seems to me...

AK: Okay. Fine. So, they had my telephone, and at one point they said "Okay, we have this message that you sent to Patrick", and I said I don't think I did,
and they yelled "Liar! Look! This is your telephone, and here's your
message saying you wanted to meet him!" And I didn't even remember that I
had written him a message. But okay, I must have done it. And they were saying
that the message said I wanted to meet him.

So, where's the part about them finding the message from Lumumba and agreeing with her, 'yes it seems you were telling the truth'?

 

[Grinder]

It doesn't take much to figure out that Mignini realized he "needed" her to restate what she'd said but as a suspect so he could arrest her.

I doubt that. They couldn't need a confession to arrest someone. They couldn't use the 1:45 in court during a trial but could use it as part of the investigation and did. Since the second (Mignini) was totally thrown out because she was a suspect clearly it wasn't needed.

 

[Malkmus]

I doubt that. They couldn't need a confession to arrest someone. They couldn't use the 1:45 in court during a trial but could use it as part of the investigation and did. Since the second (Mignini) was totally thrown out because she was a suspect clearly it wasn't needed.

Why do you think she was arrested only after the second statement was made?

 

[anglolawyer]

I maintain they forced out of her their narrative. They did it twice: once at 1.45 and once at 5.45. Since Lumumba's text did not fit their crime theory why would they let her stick to just that one accurate part of the story when the rest is wall-to-wall crap? The answer may be that by 1.45 they had not worked out how to deal with what they had only just discovered. They had the 'see you later' part (Eureka!) but not the 'meet me now' bit. After 1.45 they went into a huddle, erased the text from the phone and had another stab, resulting in an improved and completely different version. The differences should be studied because they reflect other advances in their thinking in the small hours.

All good, but all of the above doesn't depend in any way on whether they knew what was in Lumumba's SMS first hand or only by Amanda's words.

It's OK if you can't think of an answer to a question to just say so. Try again, would you? I highlighted it for you.

By saying they had seen it? To the world's press? Again, where is the evidence that Lumumba fixed up a meeting?

He's lying about the contents, it may very well mean they didn't see the SMS at all. Anyway it gives you nothing

OK - you're happy for the police chief to be lying about what was in the text, on day one, but you think their scruples wouldn't let them delete a message. Interesting! I guess there have to be limits even for the Squadra Mobile!

But then you're the one who posted a segment which contained a statement directly contrary to your existing understanding of her evidence, so maybe your judgment unsound? While you are talking about 'a picture' I am referring to a fact of which she gave direct evidence.

Yes, because you want it out of context. To me it's not a fact, it's a single sentence that only when taken out of context can be interpreted your way.

It is not a question of context. Her evidence is contradictory in a way which cannot be resolved by reference to contextual matters (which you do not explain anyway). Reeling off extracts from other parts of her testimony is no good. In the segment you posted (without noticing what was in it) you can see she gives her account in free narrative, interrupted only by the interpreter but not directed or distracted by questions. The stuff you keep posting is different.

I'm looking at her story of the interrogation that she told in court during her testimony and earlier in front of Micheli. In her version the issue of the SMS comes out when she insists she didn't go out anywhere, she didn't have to go to work because she received a message from Patrick. She gives them her phone to check, and they find instead the reply and start grilling her about it.
Originally Posted by Testimony: Massei, Amanda
I didn't go out. "Yes, you did go out.
Who were you with?" I don't know. I didn't do anything. "Why didn't you
go to work?" Because my boss told me I didn't have to go to work. "Let's see
your telephone to see if you have that message." Sure, take it. "All right."
So one policeman took it, and started looking in it, while the others kept
on yelling "We know you met someone, somehow, but why did you meet someone?"
But I kept saying no, no, I didn't go out, I'm not pro[tecting]
GCM: Excuse me, okay, we understand that
there was a continuous crescendo.

AK: Yes.

GCM: As you said earlier. But if we could now get to the questions of the
pubblico ministero, otherwise it will really be impossible to avoid some
interruptions. If you want to be able to continue as tranquilly, as
continuously as possible...

AK: Okay, I'm sorry.

GCM: So, if you could get to the questions about exactly when, exactly who...
these suggestions, exactly what did they consist in? It seems to me...

AK: Okay. Fine. So, they had my telephone, and at one point they said "Okay,
we have this message that you sent to Patrick", and I said I don't think I did,
and they yelled "Liar! Look! This is your telephone, and here's your
message saying you wanted to meet him!" And I didn't even remember that I
had written him a message. But okay, I must have done it. And they were saying
that the message said I wanted to meet him.
So, where's the part about them finding the message from Lumumba and agreeing with her, 'yes it seems you were telling the truth'?

Where is the question that would elicit that answer?

 

[Grinder]

Why do you think she was arrested only after the second statement was made?

Effectively she was under arrest from some point during the first interrogation. It is perfectly clear that the police don't need a certain kind of confession to arrest someone in Italy or anywhere. In Italy they arrest someone and then take them in front of a judge who doesn't have to decide then and there to charge them but can just hold them. They weren't charged with the murder until months later.

They had declared her a suspect before the 5:45 interrogation or spontaneous session. I'm sure suspects for murder can be arrested.

 

[Grinder]

If reports are accurate that before the Corte Suprema di Cassazione rules Mignini has sued Raf and others for statements in his book, Italy makes another statement about their system of justice.

 

[Katody Matrass]

It's OK if you can't think of an answer to a question to just say so. Try again, would you? I highlighted it for you.

I'm dumb, please tell me what is your answer to that question and how does it indicate they knew about Lumumba's message contents directly, and not from Amanda's words.

OK - you're happy for the police chief to be lying about what was in the text, on day one, but you think their scruples wouldn't let them delete a message.

No, I agree it's not impossible they did it. I just don't think that Telegraph quote helps prove it in any way. Ah, and I'm sure if they did delete it, they didn't let Amanda know.

Where is the question that would elicit that answer?

What do you mean? The whole checking the phone for messages was about it.

She was sure she remembered Lumumba messaging her to not come to work. Had they acknowledged it confirming her recollection as sound, it would be much harder for them to manipulate her and undermine her trust in her own memory.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

It's a long list that Raffaele has joined

If reports are accurate that before the Corte Suprema di Cassazione rules Mignini has sued Raf and others for statements in his book, Italy makes another statement about their system of justice.

I agree, but I would add that this is direct evidence of who Mignini is, unfiltered by any web site or anything else.

 

[Katody Matrass]

If reports are accurate that before the Corte Suprema di Cassazione rules Mignini has sued Raf and others for statements in his book, Italy makes another statement about their system of justice.

Somehow it seems not very wise to me, but typical for Mig.

It's a disgrace that he is still in office.