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

[Mary_H]

Hi Mary, isn't that exactly what the police are supposed to do, once the witness becomes a suspect, stop all questioning and allow the suspect to vat an attorney. Isn't that the reason the first two declarations we not admissible, seems to me the police did exactly what they are suppose to do.......

There were two interrogations, Sherlock, one with the police and one with Mignini. If they were going to stop the questioning once Amanda became a suspect, don't you think they should have stopped it after the first interrogation and first signed confession/accusation? And whether or not she became a suspect after the first interrogation or the second one, where was her lawyer? A lot of activity ensued after the end of the second interrogation, such as bringing Amanda a bunch of documents to sign, including her arrest warrant.

The most efficient, professional way of handling it (aside from just getting her a lawyer in the first place) would have been to continue to question her as strictly a witness, in order to get as much information as possible. Then once they had a complete case, they could have made her a suspect.

This is all moot, though, because they never DID ask those additional questions about all the small details of the crime. And that is beyond understanding.

 

[Bill Williams]

The 5:45 interrogation absolutely needed to be taped. Mignini himself said, among other things, that they didn't tape because of budget concerns, yet later produced a !80,000 Euro animated video.

There certainly isn't a law against taping a witness or person with knowledge.

They didn't tape Patrick either.

When the oft repeated pulling of her alibi occurred how could she not fit the definition of a suspect.

Mignini said it should be taped as it is beneficial for all involved but it is not a legal requirement for it to be taped if the person is a witness. you are conflating two very different things.

they did make a mistake in not making her a suspect immediately after the boyfriend broke her alibi but that undermines your theory that they were trying to pin the murder on her because it is clear they didn't really think she was the killer but just covering something up.

They did not tape Lumumba.... that's all you really need to know. They were not going to tape anything that night because they were too busy abusing all three, and did not think they'd need what they got in a court.

 

[DrTesla]

They did not tape Lumumba.... that's all you really need to know. They were not going to tape anything that night because they were too busy abusing all three, and did not think they'd need what they got in a court.

it tickles me that you guys use Patrick, who is only there b/c Knox falsely accused him, as a prop to make your case the police are corrupt, and thus, Knox is innocent.

I don't think Patrick would agree with your smarmy logic there.

can you provide any kind of independent source outside of Fischer, Steve Moore, Doug Preston regarding Patrick not being taped? Also, is it possible they didn't automatically consider him a suspect based on one person's accusation without talking to him first to hear his side? Is there any possibility that they didn't really believe Knox's claim was credible so they didn' tmake him a suspect from the start?

 

[Bill Williams]

bill Williams,

can you provide a quote of Mignini talking about a Satanic rite? He specifically addressed this in an interview with CNN that I've seen posted on here that he did not ever say it was about a Satanic rite. why would he lie about one of his motive theories if it was at one point his motive theory?

can you point me to the page of Massei where he rejects the Satanic rite theory b/c pretty sure he never talks about that.

John Follain, Sunday Times, 19 October 2008. "Amanda Knox ‘stabbed Meredith Kercher to death in satanic ritual’" John Follain is a guilter author/journalist. By the time the 1st trial came around, the Satanic part of it was dropped in favour of the sex-game. That's why there is nothing in the trial record about it, unless I am missing something.

When the new alleged motive, the sex-game thing, did not pan out Mignini tried to sell yet another motive to the jury at the first trial, this time that the motive was now a hatred Amanda had for Meredith and she wanted to intimidate Meredith. No Satan, no sex-game, just intimidation.

None of the motives made it into the Massei motivations report. Massei simply invented a new theory of the murder, one not presented at trial even by the prosecution..... "they made a momentary choice for evil."

 

[Bill Williams]

it tickles me that you guys use Patrick, who is only there b/c Knox falsely accused him, as a prop to make your case the police are corrupt, and thus, Knox is innocent.

I don't think Patrick would agree with your smarmy logic there.

I am glad it tickles you. Lumumba told newspapers that he was beaten up in interrogation. He then reversed field. Too bad that there was no lawyer with him and no videotaping of his interrogation. You miss the point. In fact, you make the point. The cops believed a confused foreigner on the flimsiest of "evidence". And you get tickled when Lumumba, too, is denied his rights. Good for you.

 

[Mary_H]

They did not tape Lumumba.... that's all you really need to know. They were not going to tape anything that night because they were too busy abusing all three, and did not think they'd need what they got in a court.

I don't know how many times this article has been cited here, but it never seems to sink in:

(In response to numerous reader questions as the trial has progressed, seattlepi.com has asked Giancarlo Costa, a criminal defense lawyer in Rome, and Stefano Maffei, who also has a doctorate in law from the University of Oxford and has been a guest lecturer at The University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law, to answer some basic legal questions about the case....)

If a suspect's freedom of movement is hindered, the interrogation must be videotaped.

Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/arti...da-Knox-s-guilt-will-881847.php#ixzz2TgyhgIp0

 

[DrTesla]

John Follain, Sunday Times, 19 October 2008. "Amanda Knox ‘stabbed Meredith Kercher to death in satanic ritual’" John Follain is a guilter author/journalist. By the time the 1st trial came around, the Satanic part of it was dropped in favour of the sex-game. That's why there is nothing in the trial record about it, unless I am missing something.

When the new alleged motive, the sex-game thing, did not pan out Mignini tried to sell yet another motive to the jury at the first trial, this time that the motive was now a hatred Amanda had for Meredith and she wanted to intimidate Meredith. No Satan, no sex-game, just intimidation.

None of the motives made it into the Massei motivations report. Massei simply invented a new theory of the murder, one not presented at trial even by the prosecution..... "they made a momentary choice for evil."

well any theory before the trial can't be said to be Mignini's theory. the investisgators may have a satanic rite theory during their investigation, but I think that has been distorted from just think it was a Halloweenish prank of some sort that went bad.

motive is the most difficult thing to establish in a trial and all Mignini is trying to do is to present a scenario that is realistic. his final motive theory is the only one that matters, and that is about tension b/t the two girls. these girls were not best friends, as while that doesn't prove anything, it does make it possible Knox killed her roommate. the point of motive theory is to explain how a murder could be possible. you want to make it out as though it must prove the murder which is a test no motive theory could pass.

 

[DrTesla]

I am glad it tickles you. Lumumba told newspapers that he was beaten up in interrogation. He then reversed field. Too bad that there was no lawyer with him and no videotaping of his interrogation. You miss the point. In fact, you make the point. The cops believed a confused foreigner on the flimsiest of "evidence". And you get tickled when Lumumba, too, is denied his rights. Good for you.

Patrick was angry he was held for 14 days based on the accusation of the batty bimbo aka THe Butcher of Perugia Amanda Knox. he probably said some things in anger that were not true, but who can blame him. I wouldn't doubt if he played the race card a bit to secure some kind of finanicial settlement.

it seems to me if these cops were so mean to him then why would they let him out of jail when his alibi was proven. it seems at the end they did the right thing and let him go. meanwhile, they never let Knox go. isn't this indicative that they had evidence against Knox? they let an innocent person go. the guilty person remains the accused. just a coincidence?

 

[RandyN]

I don't know how many times this article has been cited here, but it never seems to sink in:



Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/arti...da-Knox-s-guilt-will-881847.php#ixzz2TgyhgIp0

Hummm...how very Machiavellian.

 

[RandyN]

well any theory before the trial can't be said to be Mignini's theory. the investisgators may have a satanic rite theory during their investigation, but I think that has been distorted from just think it was a Halloweenish prank of some sort that went bad.

motive is the most difficult thing to establish in a trial and all Mignini is trying to do is to present a scenario that is realistic. his final motive theory is the only one that matters, and that is about tension b/t the two girls. these girls were not best friends, as while that doesn't prove anything, it does make it possible Knox killed her roommate. the point of motive theory is to explain how a murder could be possible. you want to make it out as though it must prove the murder which is a test no motive theory could pass.

Comodi told Mignini that if he didnt drop the Satanic thing she would leave the case.

As for recording the interogation....Mignini's first excuse was that they were so busy they simply forgot to press the record button.

Later in the CNN interview he lied about the cost constraints as being the reason...how do we know he lied? Because it was discovered that he could afford to tap, record and document 30,000 plus phone calls made by RS family members. He also was able to afford a 187 thousand Euro cartoon that was certain to be not allowed in court anyway. This 187,000 cartoon is being investigated by Italy so we should know something around 2018 or so.

 

[DrTesla]

sorry about the delay, guys. I am posting something that I wrote last night on some other comment board and I didn't feel like typing out the same thoughts again on here but I think it's important to look at this case in the context of how it would be viewed if the murder had gone down in the States and everything else stayed the same. I have a drinking problem and I'm bipolar so just ignore some of the mania that I exhibited in my post. after I wrote this last night I painted a masterpiece of Knox and Raffe nude with the cottage in the background and blood dripping down the front of the door.

here are my thoughts from last night:

all I know is if you are a white person in the States and you accuse a black person of the murder and that turns out to be a fasle accusation, and then another black man is found guilty but these two rich white people are not, there would be riots in the streets lead by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and Obama would be saying Rudy Guede could be his son and Patrick could be his son, etc. there is no way public opinion would be on the side of Knox in America because we love Barack Obama here despite the horrible 5 year economy, crushing debt, and Benghazi and IRS scandals because he is the first black president and he knows Jay Z and Beyoncé and parties with them.
Did you not witness the reaction to the Trayvon Martin shooting in FLorida by a Hispanic man named Zimmerman? ZImmerman was hung in the court of public opinion immediately with the liberal media and Obama cheering it on. You think Knox, a white person, is going to fare better when she falsely accused her innocent black boss, a decent, well liked man by all accounts, AND Knox and Raffe, the two affluent rich spoiled white kids with access to best lawyers money can buy are still free while the poor nearly homeless black man (remember he is always breaking in to houses for food and shelter and toilet and women's clothing) is quickly jailed and sent to jail for years and years and years? Meanwhile Knox is out and about having sex with her new boyfriend in Seattle, living the good life? You really think Obama is going to let that slide? LOL you dont' understand Obama at all. This guy has been using the IRS as a weapon against his political opponents, you think he's going to let some white girl skate for falsely accusing a black man when Patrick's family lobbies him on Facebook? He's not going to care about the murder aspect, as the Democrat pointed out recently after the bombing in Boston, people die everyday, but he is going to care about the injustice against these two black men and he will seek to correct it, much like he used the IRS to correct injustices by conservatives groups under this illusion they had certain rights. LOL you guys crack me up at your naïve status.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Let's just say that it's indicative of a problem if the first three theories about a motive get tossed out for being absurd, the fourth is no better, and pro-guilt fanfiction writers have to come up with a fifth themselves which still isn't a plausible motive for murder.

While some uninformed people like to run the Chewbacca Defence and argue that because murder is irrational there is no point in using reason to investigate such crimes, because murderers are absolutely unpredictable, this is simply factually false. Murders follow patterns like any other crime.

Family members kill each other. Criminals kill each other. Men kill over honour, and very occasionally women too. People with histories of violence and inappropriate sexual behaviour sometimes rape and kill people. It happens all over the world.

Housemates killing each other over an unflushed loo? Not so much.

It's very much a zebra hypothesis to look at a crime scene where a young woman has been sexually assaulted and stabbed to death, where there is a known criminal with a history of similar crimes, known to carry knives, known to have been at the scene, and hypothesise "You know what? I bet the housemate was in on it!".

(The hypothesis was less crazy, but still very silly, before Guede was officially known to be involved. If Lumumba had done it, then it would have been less irrational to believe Amanda might have been involved as she was a plausible link between the two. Once Lumumba was out and Guede was in, complicating the theory by trying to drag in Knox and Sollecito was just deranged. Then again, Mignini has form for deranged conspiracy theories and prosecutorial misconduct).

 

[DrTesla]

Comodi told Mignini that if he didnt drop the Satanic thing she would leave the case.

As for recording the interogation....Mignini's first excuse was that they were so busy they simply forgot to press the record button.

Later in the CNN interview he lied about the cost constraints as being the reason...how do we know he lied? Because it was discovered that he could afford to tap, record and document 30,000 plus phone calls made by RS family members. He also was able to afford a 187 thousand Euro cartoon that was certain to be not allowed in court anyway. This 187,000 cartoon is being investigated by Italy so we should know something around 2018 or so.

what evidence do you have that Comodi told Mignini this? i'm not sure she had much choice in the matter b/c she was assigned this case. I don't think they can just leave cases if they disagree with another member of the team. it probably doesn't work like that. in pictures that I've seen of them together, I got the sense that they like each other. minimum, they respect each other.

do you doubt that they don't videotape all witnesses? even if they should have videotaped Knox, it doesn't speak to her innocence or guilty one way or another.

 

[Bill Williams]

Patrick was angry he was held for 14 days based on the accusation of the batty bimbo aka THe Butcher of Perugia Amanda Knox. he probably said some things in anger that were not true, but who can blame him. I wouldn't doubt if he played the race card a bit to secure some kind of finanicial settlement.

it seems to me if these cops were so mean to him then why would they let him out of jail when his alibi was proven. it seems at the end they did the right thing and let him go. meanwhile, they never let Knox go. isn't this indicative that they had evidence against Knox? they let an innocent person go. the guilty person remains the accused. just a coincidence?

If the ability to heap invective settled this, you'd win. However, when Lumumba was let go, please summarize the evidence against Knox. In short, when Rudy was discovered why was not Knox let go?

Never mind. Don't bother. I know what you'll say. This back and forth is for those who read these things without posting themselves anyway. I ask those who are interested... exactly what was the evidence against Knox? Against Sollecito? On the day Lummba was released.

 

[Grinder]

Not taping of a "witness" that at best was only not technically a suspect speaks to the ineptitude or worse of the ILE. Patrick was arrested in his home by a passel of cops that rushed into his home and yanked from feeding his kid.

There is no way that anyone can say that he wasn't a suspect at that time.

There is no law against taping a witness so there was no reasonable explanation for not doing it. The only question is: did they tape it and toss it or did they really not tape it.

It would be great to know if and what standard procedure is there.

 

[DrTesla]

If the ability to heap invective settled this, you'd win. However, when Lumumba was let go, please summarize the evidence against Knox. In short, when Rudy was discovered why was not Knox let go?

Never mind. Don't bother. I know what you'll say. This back and forth is for those who read these things without posting themselves anyway. I ask those who are interested... exactly what was the evidence against Knox? Against Sollecito? On the day Lummba was released.

this isn't evidence against her b/c it also points to her guilt, her lack of an alibi and the fact her "boyfriend" broke her alibi. throw in her odd behavior and inconsistent statements and they clearly had enough to hold her. they would deserve a jail sentence if they had not held her.

keep in mind that Knox herself admits she looks guilty in her unsolicited written declaration, and she said in court that she was not forced to write this declaration. you can't beat up on the cops for simply agreeing with her she looks guilty.

 

[Briars]

We don't know where the forensic police sampled; therefore, drawing conclusions about the lack of DNA in Filomena's room, for example, is fraught with difficulty. However, it is well known that DNA transfers occurs in simulated strangulation studies, which are presumably less violent than an actual domestic violence event. The lack of DNA of anyone other than Rudy on Meredith clothes (or Meredith's wrists if they swabbed there), is a big problem for any theory in which Raffaele or Amanda restrained her. Reference: Wiegand P, Kleiber M: DNA typing of epithelial cells after strangulation. International Journal of Legal Medicine 110(4):181-3, 1997.

The lack of defensive wounds, the number of injuries inflicted , the nonsensical moving of the victim. The post attack removal of clothing all these things convinced both courts that there was more than one assailant. There was DNA found on a key piece of clothing which remains "a big problem."

 

[Bill Williams]

well any theory before the trial can't be said to be Mignini's theory. the investisgators may have a satanic rite theory during their investigation, but I think that has been distorted from just think it was a Halloweenish prank of some sort that went bad.

motive is the most difficult thing to establish in a trial and all Mignini is trying to do is to present a scenario that is realistic. his final motive theory is the only one that matters, and that is about tension b/t the two girls. these girls were not best friends, as while that doesn't prove anything, it does make it possible Knox killed her roommate. the point of motive theory is to explain how a murder could be possible. you want to make it out as though it must prove the murder which is a test no motive theory could pass.

You are kidding, right? You ask me to prove that Mignini had a Satanic ritual theory, I prove it and you retreat to, "any theory before the trial can't be said to be Mignini's theory"?

You are entitled to think what you think. And as for final motive, the one with the tension between the girls, this was rejected my the Massei court. The testimony given at trial which was supposed to bolster this motive simply did not tell the tale of the kind of hostility that leads to murder.

Please, go ahead and believe what you wish. Now you retreat to, "well you don't need a motive anyway". Does this mean you will drop your own theorizing about motive? Probably not, but then again, you'll end up posting just what you want anyway.

You ask for proof, it's given to you, and you retreat into, "it doesn't matter anyway." RandyN has already said it - Comodi threatened to quit if Mignini brought his Satanic rite theories over from the Narducci case into this one. At that point both Comodi and Mignini should have thrown in the towel... pleasenswer me this? Why'd they not throw in the towel?

Because they then invented the sex game gone wrong motive. Motive may not be important to you, and it actually might not be that important to a case - but Mignini and COmodi certainly burned the midnight oil trying to manufacture one.

Because when the sex-game motive didn't pan out, and all they had left was the testimony of an unclean toilet, "motive" was still important enough to them to change it to a third one - a bad relationship between the two young women.

Motive may not be important to you, and it actually might not be that important to a case, but here they tried a third one. And that one did not pan out.

Motive may not be important to you, and it actually might not be that important to a case, but even Judge Massei needed to fill that hole. He said that Knox and Sollecito made a moemtary "choice for evil" so as to experience something different. That's all. That's what Massei said, with no one, not a single soul, prosecutor or victim or witness or defence even hinting that this was the reason behind it all. Massei just invented it.

Motive may not be important to you, and it actually might not be that important to a case but it went through at least 4 iterations before motive completely disappeared.

Why do you think that between Nov 2007 and Dec 2009 Mignini and Comodi were so intent on pursuing "motive", if you yourself don't think one is important? They did. So much so that whenever one they offered fell apart they dreamt up a new one.

 

[Bill Williams]

this isn't evidence against her b/c it also points to her guilt, her lack of an alibi and the fact her "boyfriend" broke her alibi. throw in her odd behavior and inconsistent statements and they clearly had enough to hold her. they would deserve a jail sentence if they had not held her.

keep in mind that Knox herself admits she looks guilty in her unsolicited written declaration, and she said in court that she was not forced to write this declaration. you can't beat up on the cops for simply agreeing with her she looks guilty.

"Looks guilty"? Ok..... I'm looking through the criminal code for the defintion of "looks guilty". I thought we paid cops to be able to look past cartwheels and saying, "Ta Da", to catch people who get away precisely because they don't look guilty.

 

[DrTesla]

You are kidding, right? You ask me to prove that Mignini had a Satanic ritual theory, I prove it and you retreat to, "any theory before the trial can't be said to be Mignini's theory"?

You are entitled to think what you think. And as for final motive, the one with the tension between the girls, this was rejected my the Massei court. The testimony given at trial which was supposed to bolster this motive simply did not tell the tale of the kind of hostility that leads to murder.

Please, go ahead and believe what you wish. Now you retreat to, "well you don't need a motive anyway". Does this mean you will drop your own theorizing about motive? Probably not, but then again, you'll end up posting just what you want anyway.

You ask for proof, it's given to you, and you retreat into, "it doesn't matter anyway." RandyN has already said it - Comodi threatened to quit if Mignini brought his Satanic rite theories over from the Narducci case into this one. At that point both Comodi and Mignini should have thrown in the towel... pleasenswer me this? Why'd they not throw in the towel?

the point in establysing a motive is to explain how the murder could have happened. it can help tie all the events together if you get it right or close to right. if Knox is nuts, as I suspect, it really is going to be hard to establish why she did it especially if drugs were involved as they no doubt were in this case.

Because they then invented the sex game gone wrong motive. Motive may not be important to you, and it actually might not be that important to a case - but Mignini and COmodi certainly burned the midnight oil trying to manufacture one.

Because when the sex-game motive didn't pan out, and all they had left was the testimony of an unclean toilet, "motive" was still important enough to them to change it to a third one - a bad relationship between the two young women.

Motive may not be important to you, and it actually might not be that important to a case, but here they tried a third one. And that one did not pan out.

Motive may not be important to you, and it actually might not be that important to a case, but even Judge Massei needed to fill that hole. He said that Knox and Sollecito made a moemtary "choice for evil" so as to experience something different. That's all. That's what Massei said, with no one, not a single soul, prosecutor or victim or witness or defence even hinting that this was the reason behind it all. Massei just invented it.

Motive may not be important to you, and it actually might not be that important to a case but it went through at least 4 iterations before motive completely disappeared.

Why do you think that between Nov 2007 and Dec 2009 Mignini and Comodi were so intent on pursuing "motive", if you yourself don't think one is important? They did. So much so that whenever one they offered fell apart they dreamt up a new one.

that Doug Preston guy has been able to apread so much misinformation about Mignini and the Narducci and MOF case. Mignin never developed the MOF occult theory as that was investigated by other people back in the 1980s. he was only looking at the possible murder of the doctor Narducci based on intercepted phone calls in which somebody said the doctor was murdered...Mignini wasn't interested in the occult theory in that case, the point was to establish if this guy had been murdered, and his wife agreed with the idea he was murdered.

you have not proven that Mignii's prosecution partner Comodi told him she would leave if he didn't give up the Satantic rite angle or that Migniin ever had a Satanic rite angle. Show me a source for both of these assertions, don't provide Fischer's website.

If satantic rite was his angle at any point, why wouldn't he just admit it? It was bound to get out to the press at some point if it was his motive theory. there may be some credibliy to the investigators thinking this crime had some kind of Halloweenish theme at first simply b/c it took place the day after Halloween but that's a far cry from a satanic rite theory.

the point in establysing a motive is to explain how the murder could have happened. it can help tie all the events together if you get it right or close to right. if Knox is nuts, as I suspect, it really is going to be hard to establish why she did it especially if drugs were involved as they no doubt were in this case.

I'm assuming the jury is free to come to their own idea of what the motive is based on the information provided on the evidence presented in the trial. I don' think Massie court's conclusion on the motive proves Migniiw was way off base. I also don't see why you keep pointing out the motive theory happened. a murder trial isn't static, and as you learn more about the accused and other pieces of evidence, it makes sense to modify your motive theory to fit these facts. you guys always say Mignini is a zealot but this indicates he's not a zealot if he's changing his motive theory as information is coming in about the facts.