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

[anglolawyer]

Tronic's post reminded me of a section of Galati in which he discusses the probative value of claims Amanda made at the Questura on 02 Nov, witnessed by the virgins, of things she could not have known unless she were the killer.

The English girls, friends of the victim, had been heard at the hearing of February 13, 2009. ... all the girls, that is Robyn Carmel Butterworth, Sophie Purton, Jade Bidwell, Nathalie Hayward and Helen Power, have stated that Amanda on the evening of November 2, 2007, while they were all waiting to be called by the police, in locations within the Questura ..., said that she was the one who had found Meredith’s body, that it was ‚'in‛ the wardrobe (a manner of saying that she was murdered in the area comprised of the wardrobe dimensions, that is in front of it, as verified by the police), that she was covered by a quilt, that a foot was sticking out, that they had cut her throat and that there was blood everywhere

I don't quite get Galati's 'clarification' of the word 'in'. Without being Clintonesque, surely what Amanda thought was they had found Meredith in the wardrobe with her foot sticking out. She had heard 'a foot, a foot' and perhaps something else, in Italian, that she had mistranslated. Galati continues:

Instead, the same Knox, in her [court] interrogation (transcript hearing June 13, 2009 p 49), excludes having seen, she and Raffaele, into Meredith’s room, when the door was kicked in because she was away from the room

and relying on this:

Dr Francesco Camana, heard during the course of the hearing of May 23, 2009, in responding to one of the questions about the position of the victim, that is to say, on the spot in which the victim had been struck, facing the wardrobe, whether the spot was within the width of the wardrobe (nevertheless devoid of any mirror), that is ‚in the region of the wardrobe mirror‛, has confirmed this particular multiple times, affirming: 'one can see that the convergence area itself, therefore as a consequence also the origin in space [i.e., in 3-D], stands directly in front of the wardrobe door and could not have been different given also ... this also a forensic officer can ... Certainly, yes, right in front of the door really‛

concludes

Thus, Amanda has described the spot where Meredith was effectively murdered (in front of the wardrobe) and she has described the state of the body and of the room and the injury to the throat, in speaking with Meredith’s co-nationals, although, at the moment when the door to Meredith’s room was kicked in, neither she nor Sollecito, for certain, were able to look inside.

Well, except for the part about Meredith not being in the wardrobe and not being found in front of the wardrobe either, and ignoring that she heard 'a foot, a foot' or that someone saw one of the medical folks come out and make a throat cutting gesture and passed that round the group and the fact that Luca and Filomena saw inside the room and others did and there may have been mention of blood, this is surely a killer blow to the defence. Not.

I find it hard to read this stuff without thinking Galati's brief was just to splurge on at enormous length (getting paid by the word as Bill says) in the hope no one would actually read to the end and the gallery would applaud.

 

[Grinder]

It is hardly evidence of their involvement in the murder. Why not focus on real evidence in the case, such as the location of Meredith's phone at 10:13? Or Curatolo's statement and whether it is credible? Where is the real evidence in this case? Where is the footage from the three CCTV cameras on Corso Garibaldi across from the Piazza Grimana? Three cameras that Amanda and Raffaele would have passed by that night.
Why don't you try and prove that the break in was staged when the logic points to it not being staged?

Except for the staged break-in I agree with the above.

The interview with Mansey is seemed at the time to be him confusing dates and at that time there were many strange accounts floating around. There was the one about the guy by the fountain washing his bloody hands saying "I killed her" and the reports that Amanda was seen with North Africans washing clothes in a laundromat. They said that Meredith's window was broken and her door locked , making it seem the perp(s) had used it for entrance and/or exit.

Tron - perhaps as Tesla says discussing more of the circumstantial evidence associated with the crime rather than behavior day(s) after the fact. You can't say that the interview was key to conviction. I don't believe it was mentioned in court. As I said earlier on this thread, I don't think RS is the sharpest tool in the shed.

What do you think the police thought was correct before Amanda named Patrick?

Do you believe that the bra was secured for the 47 days it allegedly lay in the cottage before being gathered?

Did you believe that Curatolo should be believed and is an acceptable witness? Do you still believe him after he stated that he was on heroin that day and everyday?

Now that Napoleoni and her men have been charged with fiddling with the police data base and harassing her ex-husband or his psychologist does that make fiddling with the MK murder case more likely in your mind? Anglo here's an angle for you to pursue: Napoleoni seemingly is claiming that her men did the illegal things on their own to help her case to deny her husband joint custody. Think about it. Could some of these same cops have wanted to help the murder case by making sure there was some evidence against RS after the shoe prints (the only hard circumstantial evidence against him) were shown not to be his?

It is humorous that you use a cartoon to try to make your case. Mignini used the famous $200,000 cartoon and the whole case against them would have been funny if not so serious.

 

[anglolawyer]

snip

Now that Napoleoni and her men have been charged with fiddling with the police data base and harassing her ex-husband or his psychologist does that make fiddling with the MK murder case more likely in your mind? Anglo here's an angle for you to pursue: Napoleoni seemingly is claiming that her men did the illegal things on their own to help her case to deny her husband joint custody. Think about it. Could some of these same cops have wanted to help the murder case by making sure there was some evidence against RS after the shoe prints (the only hard circumstantial evidence against him) were shown not to be his?

That is utterly unthinkable and I don't know how you can suggest such a thing. OTOH I can quite see them deleting a text, without orders, when they realised it didn't say what they already knew it was supposed to say. Convinced?

 

[Grinder]

That is utterly unthinkable and I don't know how you can suggest such a thing. OTOH I can quite see them deleting a text, without orders, when they realised it didn't say what they already knew it was supposed to say. Convinced?

With all due respect, and I mean that, I have a very hard time buying into the timing of your message erasing theory. I just don't think, if framing occurred at all, it occurred that early on. During that interview they weren't committed to a theory of the case in public. From their point of view the message from Patrick wouldn't have undone their theory because they could easily have said that his message was agreed upon (code) and only her response was needed.

While I don't believe the knife at Raf's was the murder weapon, I don't think the idea of taking cooking equipment to where one is cooking is not reasonably possible, including a knife. I can see an Englishman not understanding a cooking related issue.

 

[Dan O.]

The interview with Mansey is seemed at the time to be him confusing dates

Why would you assume that it is Raffaele confusing the dates? Raffaele had been telling a consistent story from the beginning but then along comes Kate Mansey who on the basis of one interview writes a story that is inconsistent with other known facts. To me, it is more conceivable that Kate is the one that got the dates confused.

 

[acbytesla]

That is utterly unthinkable and I don't know how you can suggest such a thing. OTOH I can quite see them deleting a text, without orders, when they realised it didn't say what they already knew it was supposed to say. Convinced?

I know, its as unthinkable as destroying three hard drives

Or the Scientific police lying ..oops I mean forgetting to mention that the Luminol footprints tested negative using TMB.

Or using fraudulent documents in regards to scientific evidence.

Or not recording suspect interviews in a murder case.

Never happen

 

[Grinder]

Why would you assume that it is Raffaele confusing the dates? Raffaele had been telling a consistent story from the beginning but then along comes Kate Mansey who on the basis of one interview writes a story that is inconsistent with other known facts. To me, it is more conceivable that Kate is the one that got the dates confused.

Whatever. He told a story in his book about wanting to see a calendar when being interrogated because he was confused.

 

[Grinder]

I know, its as unthinkable as destroying three hard drives

Or the Scientific police lying ..oops I mean forgetting to mention that the Luminol footprints tested negative using TMB.

Or using fraudulent documents in regards to scientific evidence.

Or not recording suspect interviews in a murder case.

Never happen

Everything you mention was after they were committed publicly to their theory of the case. It is not clear if the interrogation was recorded and destroyed or never recorded. If it was never recorded it would more of incompetence.

 

[Bill Williams]

Confirmation of an early false alibi from Raffaele Sollecito.

There's a more complete Kate Mansey (Daily Mirror) interview of Raffaele Sollecito, from the week of the murder, in John Follains book about the crime "Death in Perugia".

As you can see, he meant the night of the murder

He wasn't stoned, intoxicated or confused. He was sober, photographed, voluntarily giving his details out; even correcting Mansey with the spelling of his name.

Aside from the problems associated with using early newspaper reporting to prove anything - the Mansey piece in the Mirror shows nothing that you claim. What it shows is that Sollecito was having trouble distinguishing between Wednesday night and Thursday night. He had the same trouble in the Questura on the night of the interrogation, and when he asked to see a calendar so that he could straighten it out, he was refused.

It would be far better if you posted a comprehensive timeline of the crime - which includes the major evidence points - like your opinion on time-of-death and your opinion about Guede's own timeline done in Skype from Germany.

Briars/Super8 and others are very good at starting with the assumption of guilt, and then seeing guilt in each piece of minutiae - esp. where equally valid counter explanations are equally plausible.

The point is to eventually rap it up into a larger explanation - what is your opinion of the DNA? What is your evaluation of the superwitnesses? Do you think that the cops erased Lumumba's incoming message?

Briars has also given it a go at the 5 things which Massei in his own motivations' report says is factual about the case - items which contradict the prosecutions' ever changing theories. Have you seen those? What's your comment about each item?

 

[Dan O.]

There's a more complete Kate Mansey (Daily Mirror) interview of Raffaele Sollecito, from the week of the murder, in John Follains book about the crime "Death in Perugia".

Does John Follain claim that he was a witness to that intervies or that it was videotaped?

 

[anglolawyer]

With all due respect, and I mean that, I have a very hard time buying into the timing of your message erasing theory. I just don't think, if framing occurred at all, it occurred that early on. During that interview they weren't committed to a theory of the case in public. From their point of view the message from Patrick wouldn't have undone their theory because they could easily have said that his message was agreed upon (code) and only her response was needed.

While I don't believe the knife at Raf's was the murder weapon, I don't think the idea of taking cooking equipment to where one is cooking is not reasonably possible, including a knife. I can see an Englishman not understanding a cooking related issue.

Replying to someone else you said:

Everything you mention was after they were committed publicly to their theory of the case. It is not clear if the interrogation was recorded and destroyed or never recorded. If it was never recorded it would more of incompetence.

So the key thing to you is the public commitment part but, before you make your theory public you make your theory, right? And you have to hope your theory stands up when you make it so as not to look like an idiot.

When did they start working on the theory? De Felice answered that at the press conference. They already had a theory and the exchange of texts was part of it. They knew when they asked for the cell phone they would find the messages on it. They must have guessed what the messages would say since everything else fit so perfectly (their timing, the switching off of phones, Lumumba's being in the vicinity of the apartment). 'Meet me now' - 'OK, I'm coming'. They will have known who texted whom first (Lumumba to Amanda) and who replied. They knew Amanda was needed as she had a key and there had been no genuine break-in and a black guy was involved. How much confirmation bias do you want?

And how long did they have to put this theory together to be ready for the judge (i.e. Matteini)? Basically, one day, two at most. Hardly any time at all.

Lumumba's message was an incongruity. It either found its way into the 1.45 document because Amanda was able to remember it (contrary to her evidence, which was that she had forgotten the whole thing) or because it was on her phone for the cops to read it - for the first time. As has been pointed out to Jackie they had no way of knowing before that night what the message actually said, only that it had been sent. So they had to adjust when it didn't say what they expected and signs of the adjustment can be found in at least two places:

a) the elision of all reference to the content of the message in the 5.45 document, and
b) De Felice's statement saying they found texts from Lumumba (true) fixing up a meeting (false)

Part of the purpose of the 5.45 document may have been to eliminate the inconvenient content of Patrick's message, a purpose frustrated by some supervening event which forced them to cough up the 1.45 document, which they still turned to their advantage by getting Matteini hung up on the tiny difference between their recollections of it.

I have gone on at length. My point was only to say public theories have to be formulated before they become public and to be defensible. So they require a commitment before as well as after publication.

 

[Dan O.]

Whatever. He told a story in his book about wanting to see a calendar when being interrogated because he was confused.

The book was written 4 years later. Does Raffaele remember that interview or does he have to rely on what Kate wrote? If Raffaele presumes that the article reflected what he said, he would subsequently feel he had been confused and wish he had consulted a calendar.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

article

Does John Follain claim that he was a witness to that intervies or that it was videotaped?

That is a good question. Follain writes "to a party." IIRC the original Mansey story used the phrase "to party." Let's see the video.

 

[acbytesla]

Everything you mention was after they were committed publicly to their theory of the case. It is not clear if the interrogation was recorded and destroyed or never recorded. If it was never recorded it would more of incompetence.

I hate to think they were corrupt Grinder. So that means they were insanely inept. And I have a bigger problem with them being this inept and stupid as opposed to being overly zealous and corrupt.

Seriously, this was an extremely high profile case, particularly because of the fact that involved two young foreigners from the UK and the US. I'm sure that they were aware that every news agency in the Western world was quite interested in this case. You would think that they would want to do it right, by the book. (But they seem to have a different book in Perugia)

How do you schedule a dozen detectives to work in the middle of the night and not arrange for some kind of recording? And if the Questura isn't wired to record in their interrogation rooms, the Italians are just plain stupid.

Even podunk towns in America record just about everything to cover their own asses.

 

[Grinder]

Anglo,
Yes, in general, a theory is formed outside of the public eye. They had no need to fabricate a message from Patrick to Amanda and in fact didn't. Why didn't they say that the message from Patrick said something far more direct?

We now have entered into the twilight zone where Raf doesn't remember correctly that he asked for a calendar while being interrogated by the police (not Mansey). Now Anglo says that it won't matter what Amanda says because too much time has gone by or she never remembered getting Patrick's text or responding anyway.

I firmly believe she was a prime or the prime suspect along with Raf. I don't believe they thought they needed to frame her. I don't see why saying not to come in wasn't enough for them. They were happy enough to read a "see you later, good night" into we will meet up right away. Why didn't they erase that one as well and say that it said "let's meet up and go over to Meredith's and party down"? They thought they had Raf's shoe print and I'm sure they being dedicated followers of Locard were sure they would find MK's DNA at Raf's and their DNA in the murder room.

Was de Felice even there during the interrogation? Having experience with on-air interview or other media events it is not significant that Felice may (one reporter) have said that they had seen messages. I don't see where the PLE have ever said the message from Patrick was anything but what it really was - certainly de Felice didn't.

 

[anglolawyer]

Anglo,
Yes, in general, a theory is formed outside of the public eye. They had no need to fabricate a message from Patrick to Amanda and in fact didn't. Why didn't they say that the message from Patrick said something far more direct?

We now have entered into the twilight zone where Raf doesn't remember correctly that he asked for a calendar while being interrogated by the police (not Mansey). Now Anglo says that it won't matter what Amanda says because too much time has gone by or she never remembered getting Patrick's text or responding anyway.

I firmly believe she was a prime or the prime suspect along with Raf. I don't believe they thought they needed to frame her. I don't see why saying not to come in wasn't enough for them. They were happy enough to read a "see you later, good night" into we will meet up right away. Why didn't they erase that one as well and say that it said "let's meet up and go over to Meredith's and party down"? They thought they had Raf's shoe print and I'm sure they being dedicated followers of Locard were sure they would find MK's DNA at Raf's and their DNA in the murder room.

Was de Felice even there during the interrogation? Having experience with on-air interview or other media events it is not significant that Felice may (one reporter) have said that they had seen messages. I don't see where the PLE have ever said the message from Patrick was anything but what it really was - certainly de Felice didn't.

You'll come round eventually.

 

[Grinder]

I hate to think they were corrupt Grinder. So that means they were insanely inept. And I have a bigger problem with them being this inept and stupid as opposed to being overly zealous and corrupt.

No problem thinking they could be corrupt. It is the timing of being corrupt. You don't need to cheat at a game when you are winning easily. They thought they had cracked the case and the kids were guilty and the forensics would back them up. I challenge you to look at the collect video that they knew was being scrutinized in real time and would further scrutinized over time.

Seriously, this was an extremely high profile case, particularly because of the fact that involved two young foreigners from the UK and the US. I'm sure that they were aware that every news agency in the Western world was quite interested in this case. You would think that they would want to do it right, by the book. (But they seem to have a different book in Perugia)

Yes you would but they didn't. Where are the security camera videos? Where is the results of searching all the garbage cans in the area? Where are the witnesses the police located?

How do you schedule a dozen detectives to work in the middle of the night and not arrange for some kind of recording? And if the Questura isn't wired to record in their interrogation rooms, the Italians are just plain stupid.

Biggest case in years or evver as you just mentioned. Hello, I either think they were once again incompetent or someone destroyed the recording either intentionally or hard-drive style if that was not intentionally.

Even podunk towns in America record just about everything to cover their own asses.

Okay. To put this whole recording thing as an argument against my position is a straw man. I thinkj, to repeat, that they either show more of their bungling or they erased the recording after Amanda showed in her notes that she didn't understand she would be charged with a crime for saying she had been hit etc.

 

[acbytesla]

No problem thinking they could be corrupt. It is the timing of being corrupt. You don't need to cheat at a game when you are winning easily. They thought they had cracked the case and the kids were guilty and the forensics would back them up. I challenge you to look at the collect video that they knew was being scrutinized in real time and would further scrutinized over time.



Yes you would but they didn't. Where are the security camera videos? Where is the results of searching all the garbage cans in the area? Where are the witnesses the police located?



Biggest case in years or evver as you just mentioned. Hello, I either think they were once again incompetent or someone destroyed the recording either intentionally or hard-drive style if that was not intentionally.



Okay. To put this whole recording thing as an argument against my position is a straw man. I thinkj, to repeat, that they either show more of their bungling or they erased the recording after Amanda showed in her notes that she didn't understand she would be charged with a crime for saying she had been hit etc.

But they didn't record Raffaele's or Patrick or Rudy's. At what point does this become monumental stupidity, or just totally corrupt S.O.P.?

 

[Grinder]

But they didn't record Raffaele's or Patrick or Rudy's. At what point does this become monumental stupidity, or just totally corrupt S.O.P.?

I would guess that they ignore the recording requirement on a regular basis. I don't think they only should be criticized in this case. Frank wrote many posts about widespread behavior problems of the police in Italy. People that "fell down" and injured themselves so severely they died.

 

[acbytesla]

I would guess that they ignore the recording requirement on a regular basis. I don't think they only should be criticized in this case. Frank wrote many posts about widespread behavior problems of the police in Italy. People that "fell down" and injured themselves so severely they died.

This is why I don't doubt that Amanda was hit. I take every word during the interrogation with a massive dose of salt. I'm sure some of it is true. It reminds me of this scene in the movie LA Confidential.

Captain Dudley Smith: Edmund, you're a political animal. You have the eye for human weakness, but not the stomach.
Ed Exley: You're wrong, sir.
Captain Dudley Smith: Would you be willing to plant corroborative evidence on a suspect you knew to be guilty, in order to ensure an indictment?
Ed Exley: Dudley, we've been over this.
Captain Dudley Smith: Yes or no, Edmund?
Ed Exley: No!
Captain Dudley Smith: Would you be willing to beat a confession out of a suspect you knew to be guilty?
Ed Exley: No.
Captain Dudley Smith: Would you be willing to shoot a hardened criminal in the back, in order to offset the chance that some... lawyer...
Ed Exley: No.
Captain Dudley Smith: Then, for the love of God, don't be a detective. Stick to assignments where you don't have...
Ed Exley: Dudley, I know you mean well, but I don't need to do it the way you did. Or my father.