Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Bill Williams]

It's no crime to be gormless. It is also no crime to be gormless in a culture where one doesn't speak the language, and where standards of "gorm" are different to begin with.

After reading the larger part of Knox's book, I come away with a shudder at the obviousness of what is going on here. And this is with kudos to Amanda Knox for not papering over her own 20-year old shortcomings. (Neither did Raffaele paper over his own shortcomings in his own book. Both their set of shortcomings are stunningly mundane, really.)

I am just amazed that Knox endured the four days of suspicion, along with the night of that dreadful interrogation, and the prison-days after. Her gormlessness was at times a merciful shield. Yet this is a cautionary tale for all - and thank you, thank you, thank you to Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito for in all honesty relating it.

Not only do all of us need a lawyer in that situation but the gormless fish-out-of-water types do too.

Indeed, it strains the mind what level of gorm one would need to have had to avoid doing what Knox did as she stumbled in stress being coerced from mistake to mistake.

Knox did not need Ficarra's medieval moralizing, she needed a lawyer. Knox did not need Ficarra's slaps on the head (two of them) she needed to get Knox a lawyer. Raffaele needed a lawyer. Lumumba needed a lawyer; hell maybe even Carlo Pacelli that night.

The cautionary tale is that this could have happened to anyone of us, facing interrogation without legal representation. I remember the words of a Regina, Saskatchewan, teen who'd confessed to a rape he didn't commit. He said, "They wear you down. Eventually you hear yourself saying things you really don't believe and a day later wish you could get back."

This could happen to any of us. This is not about Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito any more. They did nothing except be challenged to endure what unknown others have endured. We should thank them for now, 5 years later, shedding light on this travesty.

 

[RandyN]

I'm confused.

I thought that the official pro-guilt position was that the JREF forum discussion of the case was meaningless and irrelevant, and only the Italian court decisions mattered.

But now we're such a powerful influence on public opinion that we need to be careful what we say, lest we determine the court's verdict! I hope we wield this awesome power responsibly. The power to convict people on the other side of the planet by posting mean things on the internet is nothing to be sneezed at.

(Although... doesn't that mean that the more rabid pro-guilt posters on other forums should be rubbishing Italy, so as to provoke the Italians into convicting Sollecito? Lionking better go tell them that they are doing it all wrong, and that if they keep praising the Italian legal system it will paradoxically lead to Knox and Sollecito going free).

Said the spider to the fly...heeeeeee

Well at least this conversation has something to think about...the whole staged break-in cum police failure to look for burglars has grown tiresome and boring and frankly seems pointless....unless those beating it to death ever decide to come to some relevant conclusion...

Im going with stupid Italian police and prosecutor. And I have about a thousand of so examples of the stupid and or corrupt or highly suspecious behavior. All of which casts....not a shadow...but a inky blackness on the Italian judicial system and in fact the Italian people.

Lionking tells us of first hand accounts where Italians are cock sure but have basic facts wrong...and who can blame them? The prosecutor is about as correct about his basic "facts" And the prosecutor takes extreme measures to silence and control what the Italian press reports. In fact Mignini has started no fewer than 20 sub-cases related to the people he hates or who somehow tick him off. Knox slanders but Toto testifies. Knox commits Calumy while Lumumba lies in court and gets away with it. Why does Mignini not charge Lumumba? Or Guede? He lied in a letter read in court by Mignini...so another case where it happened in court so Mignini is not required to investigate...he should simply file the charges against these law breakers...

LionKing...no one has to mock the Italians...they make fools enough of themselves. From arresting scientists for failing to predict an Earthquake to Ignoring the killer of Sara Scazzi to raising Cruise Ship Captains who cruise their ship onto the rocks to show off for his girlfriend...and who both somehow trip and fall into the same lifeboat meanwhile passengers are drowning on his ship!

What did the Italians have to say about the boat?

Corrupt lying cheaters...and that's the Italian judiciary...Hellmann posed the best question....who will they blame for convicting two innocent people?

This never ends in Italy...this case will certainly go to the European Court of Human Rights...and as usual Italy will be found guilty of multiple violations in this case and in hundreds of other as well...they are in second place as worst country...maybe 2013 will move them to the top.

 

[RoseMontague]

Amanda's book has no cartwheel, btw. Just some stretching, flexing, and a split. Guilty, all because of a split. Actually, it should more likely be guilty, all because of a lost in translation text message.

 

[billyryan]

I am highly suspicious about Curatolo's death,and sometime in the future I would expect Rudy to be silenced by the time honoured and proven method

 

[Chris_Halkides]

HIV status

Amanda's book has no cartwheel, btw. Just some stretching, flexing, and a split. Guilty, all because of a split. Actually, it should more likely be guilty, all because of a lost in translation text message.

Apparently they waited for two months to tell her that she was not HIV-positive. There is no excuse.

 

[Grinder]

Okay book readers (Anglo), let us know the burning question's answer, did they show her Patrick's incoming text or not?

 

[anglolawyer]

Okay book readers (Anglo), let us know the burning question's answer, did they show her Patrick's incoming text or not?

It's good that you zero in on the one crucial question in the whole case (aside from the lamp). Unfortunately, I don't have a copy yet. While waiting, I post this extract put up earlier by MichaelB at IIP. It's a quote from the book and concerns defence attempts to get hold of raw data files:

Starting right after we were indicted, Raffaele’s and my lawyers had requested the raw data for all Stefanoni’s forensic tests. How were the samples collected? How many cotton pads had her team used to swab the bathroom sink and the bidet? How often had they changed gloves? What tests had they done— and when? Which machines had they used, at what times, and on which days? What were the original unedited results of the DNA tests? Her response was “No. We can’t give you these documents you continue to ask for, because the ones you have will have to suffice.” Then, during pretrial, the defense lawyers pressed again, and this time Judge Micheli granted the request. Stefanoni gave us some documents— but not enough to interpret the data. When we objected, the judge shrugged and said, “Well, I asked her and she said those files aren’t important for you.” Our only option was to question Stefanoni face-to-face about her methods.

Stefanoni was an attractive woman in her late thirties. Meticulously groomed, she had long dark hair, manicured nails, and olive skin. She wore tight suits that showed off her figure. The prosecution’s questions were designed to let Stefanoni reassure the judge that all the testing had been done correctly. Dr. Sarah Gino, our DNA expert, was a thin woman in her early thirties with short hair and thick glasses. Her convictions were absolute. She was insistent in her questioning of Stefanoni. Dr. Gino noted that Stefanoni hadn’t provided enough information about her investigation for our defense to be able to critique her conclusions. How much of Meredith’s DNA had she found on the knife blade? What was the evidence of the cleanup the prosecution was alleging?

Finally the judge granted Raffaele’s and my defense teams’ request for an independent review of Stefanoni’s results. The expert he appointed was the head of the Polizia Scientifica— Stefanoni’s boss. Not surprisingly, this man rubber-stamped Stefanoni’s work. It was done perfectly, he said. That was the end of it.

Knox, Amanda (2013-04-30). Waiting to Be Heard: A Memoir (Kindle Locations 3472-3474). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Joy Kuhl and Patrizia Stefanoni

Thanks, Anglo. That is reminiscent of what happened in the Lindy Chamberlain case. Joy Kuhl did not save the plates used in her unorthodox experiments, and her boss backed the quality of her work up.

 

[Bill Williams]

Okay book readers (Anglo), let us know the burning question's answer, did they show her Patrick's incoming text or not?

She said she could not remember deleting Patrick's incoming message. They asked, "Why did you delete it?"

They pressed her on what time she'd received the message.

I'm in a cynical mood those morning. Given that Knox never again had possession of the phone, it's not entirely clear that the message HAD been erased, just that they had told her it was.

Yes, now that's cynical.

 

[Grinder]

She said she could not remember deleting Patrick's incoming message. They asked, "Why did you delete it?"

They pressed her on what time she'd received the message.

But, that wasn't the question. The question was did the police show her the message from Patrick?

 

[Bill Williams]

She said she could not remember deleting Patrick's incoming message. They asked, "Why did you delete it?"

They pressed her on what time she'd received the message.

But, that wasn't the question. The question was did the police show her the message from Patrick?

I thought it was obvious from the way Knox rendered it in the book, but the answer is, no they did not show her Patrick's message. They were claiming it had been erased and were accusing Amanda of erasing it. So they did not show Amanda a message they were claiming was erased. The point was to press her on her memory of what'd she'd done a few days' previous about Patrick's incoming message, where she didn't even remember replying. The point was to confuse her faulty memory with "catching her in a lie."

There is nothing in Amanda's book either that they'd seen the message in some prior flip-through of her phone either; meaning that they'd noticed it before and now it was erased. The exchange was based on Knox's reply, "see you later, good evening", which (it is assumed but not specifically stated) they then went looking for Patrick's.

The whole issue of the way Lumumba's name "enters the room" is fascinating.

The whole business of "catching Amanda in a lie" is a fascinating one through the narrative. Aside from the marijuana use on the cottage, the only real lie, it was amazing following the things she was supposed to have lied about.

Heaven help us all in similar circumstances.

 

[Grinder]

I thought it was obvious from the way Knox rendered it in the book, but the answer is, no they did not show her Patrick's message. They were claiming it had been erased and were accusing Amanda of erasing it. So they did not show Amanda an erased messaged.

There is nothing in Amanda's book either that they'd seen the message in some prior flip-through of her phone either; meaning that they'd noticed it before and now it was erased. The exchange was based on Knox's reply, "see you later, good evening", which (it is assumed but not specifically stated) they then went looking for Patrick's.

The whole issue of the way Lumumba's name "enters the room" is fascinating.

It was obvious but a certain someone needed it directly.

 

[Bill Williams]

It was obvious but a certain someone needed it directly.

I know! Do I get extra marks for holding off on the snark? (Ooooops.... it slipped through. Damn.)

 

[anglolawyer]

It was obvious but a certain someone needed it directly.

The poor girl is obviously confused. I am sure if I got her alone for a few hours in the right conditions I could beat get it out of her.

But OK she does not remember deleting it, which is contrary to her supposed evidence that she did delete it. Plus, it is not reasonable to expect her to have total recall of the interrogation anyway. I'm staying positive until the tapes emerge.

 

[Grinder]

The poor girl is obviously confused. I am sure if I got her alone for a few hours in the right conditions I could beat get it out of her.

But OK she does not remember deleting it, which is contrary to her supposed evidence that she did delete it. Plus, it is not reasonable to expect her to have total recall of the interrogation anyway. I'm staying positive until the tapes emerge.

Oh dear, now they will have page after page of Clive wants to be alone with Amanda.

Didn't we have some wager specific to Amanda's book having the text shown to her?

 

[acbytesla]

Thats a sad and pathetic truth to all this mess.
Rudy has Migninni and Maresca siding with him, he seems to have benefited by supporting the two prosecutors...but Curatolo-Toto did that too.
Rudy can not be free to talk, and even if he doesnt talk, the ones who are trying to save face know he could. Like Toto it isnt good to have someone able to upset the ones in power in Perugia.

Rudy knows where the keys were tossed and the bloody knife is hidden. He could probably answer all the mysterys to this and the prosecution knows he alone could make them all look like fools. Which isnt good for Rudy with a prosecutor like Migninni, Edgardo Giobbi, Stefonani, Matteini, Massei..all benefitting with the guilty-verdict. The small system goes into Rome, for those who need to protect their credibility.

Rudy is a huge liability, imo..

I doubt Rudy is ever going to talk and if he does, it will be to parrot the company line. That somehow he got involved with these two crazy homicidal college kids who turned an evening of grass and maybe sex into something far more sinister. It wouldn't even surprise me that Rudy finds a way to get paid for saying this crap to the press.

 

[anglolawyer]

Oh dear, now they will have page after page of Clive wants to be alone with Amanda.

Didn't we have some wager specific to Amanda's book having the text shown to her?

We did. Looks like you're up a yacht. Rats! But, I have a theory . I need to read the whole book first but it may be the lawyers got to her and said she could not directly accuse anyone of corruption, which any such suggestion would clearly imply.

 

[Grinder]

We did. Looks like you're up a yacht. Rats! But, I have a theory . I need to read the whole book first but it may be the lawyers got to her and said she could not directly accuse anyone of corruption, which any such suggestion would clearly imply.

Sexual abuse, physical abuse denying access to DNA testing info, etc. but not deleting a text...okay

Man you lawyers are wily.

 

[Grinder]

I doubt Rudy is ever going to talk and if he does, it will be to parrot the company line. That somehow he got involved with these two crazy homicidal college kids who turned an evening of grass and maybe sex into something far more sinister. It wouldn't even surprise me that Rudy finds a way to get paid for saying this crap to the press.

If he could escape Italy the story of how he was allowed to help frame the kids would be a much bigger pay day.

It will be interesting to see if he makes it out alive.

 

[anglolawyer]

Sexual abuse, physical abuse denying access to DNA testing info, etc. but not deleting a text...okay

Man you lawyers are wily.

Not wily at all. Those things are different. Abuse in prison is nothing to do with the integrity of the prosecution. Withholding DNA info is no more than an accusation of playing procedural hard ball. That battle was played out openly with judges siding with Stefanoni and refusing to order her to hand over the raw data, or refusing to enforce their own orders. If she accuses them of deliberately fabricating or destroying evidence that would be an entirely new level and I'll be interested to see if anything of that kind is in the book.