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

[Chris_Halkides]

freedom of movement

I would say she went from being a witness to becoming a suspect after the first one, had she a lawyer then the second one should have been taped, but she didn't so there was no reason to I would think. I can see why the questioning stopped once she said she was there because she now became a suspect, but I agree, additional questions should have been asked but weren't.

Amanda's book relates that she told the cops she was having feminine issues but was not allowed to go to the ladies room. That would seem to qualify as hindering freedom of movement. Raffaele's book indicates that a cop threatened him with a severe beating if he went to see why Amanda cried out. That is surely hindering freedom of movement. More fundamentally, there is ample evidence that the two were de fact suspects before they even walked in the door to the station, as has been discussed here many times.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

woman without a face

OT. Chris do you remember the case in Germany of the serial killer that turned out be the DNA of factory worker at the glove manufacturer?

That is the Phantom of Heilbronn, and it is not OT. The cops should have suspected contamination before spending so much money in an investigation of a criminal who did not exist, but DNA evidence can have an almost mystical effect, sometimes. Of course, the crimes themselves were real; therefore, I hope that not all of the $1.4 million spent was wasted.

 

[tsig]

You bring up a good point, tsig. I would think the police and prosecutors would have been a lot more interested in getting the details out of Amanda than they seem to have been. The confessions they got from her were so sketchy! It seems to me that if you have a murder suspect, or even an accomplice, in your interrogation room, you would want to know every single detail about what happened that night.

As far as we know, since there is no interrogation tape, the interviewers let up on Amanda just as soon as she implicated Patrick. Don't you think that's strange? I mean, after all the work it took to get that out of her, don't you think they would want to know the entire story, step by step? How and when did Amanda and Patrick make their plan? What did Patrick say to Meredith when they got there? Did Meredith willingly go into the bedroom with Patrick, or did she ask Amanda what was going on?

Then for Amanda to say she woke up in Raffaele's bed the next morning? Come on! Is that good enough for the Perugian police and prosecutor? How about WHEN did you leave the cottage? HOW did you get to Raffaele's? Did Patrick walk you there? What did you and Patrick talk about after the murder? What did Patrick do with his bloody clothes? Do you think you might have gone back to the club first? Did Patrick seem nervous?

The questions to get to the bottom of everything that happened could have gone on and on for hours more. They certainly would have been important to any really thorough investigation. Then, on top of all that, when Amanda was on the stand at trial, they never even asked her to describe the murder, or even if she murdered Meredith!

Why, do you think, were they so uncurious?

As soon as she implicated Patrick her status changed so their actions changed.

 

[tsig]

that can't be true, if she did then it would have never gone to trial. they didn't prosecutre Filo for murder. You could argue Knox had the same type of alibi, that is, she was with her boyfriend somewhere, but there must have been something else corroborating that Filo, and her boyfriend, were where they claimed they were. Neither Knox or Raffe ever had anything corroborate they were at their house, which is most unlucky if they are innocent.

RS never changed his story. The police asked him how he could be certain what Knox did while he was sleeping. He rather flip

Knox herself said Raffe broke her alibi, and in recent interviews promoting her book no less. In her written declaration, she talks about Raffe breaking her alibi and how she couldn't understand why he would do it. clearly it was on her mind. raffe told them that Knox had told him to tell them a "pack of lies" and he had not thought about "all the inconsistencies" and that she had left to go somewhere, I forget the exact timeframe he gave the police but I believe he said b/t 10 to 1 am, Knox was not at his house. he may have modified his statement on Knox at the start of the Hellmann appeals trial to say he could not remember if she was there or not, but he did without a doubt break her alibi at the police station that night.




he knew he was going to be questioned by the police when he went to the station that night. Could he not have brought a lawyer with him? How is a trick question to confront him with his cell phone history and ask him a legit question about inconsistencies? He was real quick to break Knox's alibi, which is a big sign of guilt. if they were together that night at his home and he knew he wasn't involved a murder, why would he do this? there's only one answer and there is no doubt about it.




the police would be incapable of writing something so dumb and longwinded. Knox clearly wrote it, and she never denied writing it. I think that she probably wrote it English and they just had somebody translated it to Italian. You guys keep blaming the foreign language thing everytime you get into a logical corner and need a lifeline to get out.





I know you don't care if they did it. if you did, even if the prosecuter and police were being mean to them, you'd care more about the fact they butchered this young woman.



Mignini charged 20 people but they were not all family members. Mignini has been given the green light to pursue the Narducci case again. Pointing out that a judge (Micheli, by the way, which is interesting) ruled one way on that case is ok but the case isn't dead yet, it's a process. the body swap thing is interesting, it appears the body in the coffin when it was exhumed was much different from the one put in in terms of hair on his head, waist size, and the fact the body was not bloated you would suspect since he was original found on a lake. this body also appears to have a broken neck consistent with strangulation, which supported Mignini's theory he was murdered. what is mingini supposed to conclude if the body in the coffin doesn't match the one that was placed in it a long time ago, if not a body swap? your problem is all you know about this case and Mignini comes straight from Doug Preston who has a beef with Mingini over the MOF case plus looking to use the Knox case publicity to get some publicity for his MOF book. Mignini never consulted Carilizzi, the psychic, about anything, he had actually sued her for defamation in the past, and they didn't like each other. Mignin never talked about Satantic rites in the Narducci case, it was about investigating the body of the doctor to see if he was murdered, nothing else. he didn't talk about satanic rites in the Knox case as well, and you can't provide one quote in which he does. if that was his motive theory you should be able to quote him talking about it.

I find it interesting that her defenders deny things that Knox herself never denied. In fact, if we accept that the police wrote it then she's a liar when she said she wrote it.

Wait, wait...Italian.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Mignini and the ritual Satanists

Barbie Nadeau's book Angel Face indicates that Mignini wanted to reintroduce the Satanic Ritual theory at the some point in the trial first instance but that Comodi blocked him. She refers to a reporter fro Il Messaggero. Italo Carmignani on this issue (pp. 157-158).

 

[Chris_Halkides]

they were de facto suspects before they walked through the door

As soon as she implicated Patrick her status changed so their actions changed.

Nonsense. The police intended to arrest them on the night of the 5th, as Malkmus has helped to demonstrate. Even if what you said were true, it would not invalidate the point that the police should have taped the interviews and provided them with lawyers. And even if what you said were true, it fails to account for why they did not ask Amanda to fill in the details of the story, as Mary and Kaosium have pointed out. Instead they kept everyone from lawyers and announced that the case had been closed.

 

[tsig]

Nonsense. The police intended to arrest them on the night of the 5th, as Malkmus has helped to demonstrate. Even if what you said were true, it would not invalidate the point that the police should have taped the interviews and provided them with lawyers. And even if what you said were true, it fails to account for why they did not ask Amanda to fill in the details of the story, as Mary and Kaosium have pointed out. Instead they kept everyone from lawyers and announced that the case had been closed.

That would be why they didn't order her to appear?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

They were suspects in fact, if not in name

That would be why they didn't order her to appear?

Dr. Giobbi testified that he said to bring them both in. Either they intended to break Raffaele first, or they knew she would be there with him. I used to favor the latter hypothesis, but I am swinging around to the former. What were all of those cops, including Giobbi, doing there that night, if not to break them? Why was Raffaele even summoned that night in the first place? Had there been a new forensic development? And why summon him at night?

Besides the helpful research Malkmus did with respect to Italian news sources, Amanda's book (p. 97) describes an article in The Mail on Sunday (November 4th). According to Amanda, the article said that the police were "investigating the possibility that the murderer was a woman--someone whom Meredith had known well."

My previous comment indicated that your premise was wrong and that even if your premise were right, the cops were strangely unconcerned with much of the scenario implied by Amanda's statements. Please feel free to explain how their actions made sense even if one accepts the premise that her status should only have changed at the moment she named Patrick.

 

[Bob001]

... Why was Raffaele even summoned that night in the first place? Had there been a new forensic development? And why summon him at night?...

Just a question. Could Raffaele (theoretically still a "witness") have refused to go to the police station? Could he have said "This is not a good time, guys, I'll drop by in the morning?" Or "I've said all I care to. Leave me alone." Could they have taken him into custody without arresting him, or would that automatically have made him a suspect? (I continue to be unable to grasp why Raffaele or his Dad didn't get a lawyer. It doesn't require legal sophistication to think that if the police demand you come to the station immediately late at night it might indicate a problem.)

 

[toto]

Given that they told Raffaele to surrender his Nikes, then this also should have been an interrogation which was at least videotaped. Given the information they claimed they'd gotten out of Raff - that Knox went out - then Knox should have had a lawyer and had her interrogation videotaped.

And given what they said they got out of Knox - very definitely Lumumba's beating interrogation should have been videotaped.

It is astonishing that there isn't an audio tape, let alone a videotape and if I were a juror I would be most unimpressed.

 

[toto]

Does anyone know if any fingerprints (or none) were found on the two mobile phones that were found?

 

[Grinder]

Does anyone know if any fingerprints (or none) were found on the two mobile phones that were found?

Certainly no prints besides Meredith's if those. The phones were handled by the finding family and the PP at a minimum. No blood or DNA either.

 

[Briars]

You can believe in the tooth fairy if it makes you feel better.

You can stand by someone someone who is a convicted liar and continues to embellish, change and have a different account from Sollecito. Do you believe Mignini was present for her interview or not? Do you believe Sollecito when he said they tried to make a secret deal to implicate Amanda? Your the one living in a fairy tale fantasy. The books and the public speaking have only widened the cracks in their credibility.

 

[Grinder]

It is astonishing that there isn't an audio tape, let alone a videotape and if I were a juror I would be most unimpressed.

Not even a transcript. They obviously knew this was an important event in a big case. They had at least 12 detectives involved, which was verified by the list suing Amanda for defamation.

I guess they were confused and forgot to start the recording. They didn't forget to record the kids in the waiting room. They had plenty of funds to tap thousands of calls but not this hugely important interview.

 

[Antony]

Just a question. Could Raffaele (theoretically still a "witness") have refused to go to the police station? Could he have said "This is not a good time, guys, I'll drop by in the morning?" Or "I've said all I care to. Leave me alone." Could they have taken him into custody without arresting him, or would that automatically have made him a suspect? (I continue to be unable to grasp why Raffaele or his Dad didn't get a lawyer. It doesn't require legal sophistication to think that if the police demand you come to the station immediately late at night it might indicate a problem.)

Quite. The fact that the 2 students naively and trustingly toddled along to the police station is one of the clearest signs that they had nothing to hide. It beggars belief that the PGP should chorus "innocent people don't do this!" over meaningless details when there is a story of co-operation beyond what could reasonably be demanded of them.

 

[Grinder]

You can stand by someone someone who is a convicted liar and continues to embellish, change and have a different account from Sollecito. Do you believe Mignini was present for her interview or not? Do you believe Sollecito when he said they tried to make a secret deal to implicate Amanda? Your the one living in a fairy tale fantasy. The books and the public speaking have only widened the cracks in their credibility.

The fact that she is convicted of the calumnia doesn't mean that she in fact freely lied under the circumstances. Hellmann while not reversing the calumnia said that she should have withstood the pressure of the police.

She was not the first person to be convicted of a crime they didn't commit.

This PG talking point pales next to the statement by the chief that they knew what was correct before she signed the inaccurate statement. No PGP can explain how they knew Patrick was involved before Amanda's interrogation.

 

[Antony]

You can stand by someone someone who is a convicted liar and continues to embellish, change and have a different account from Sollecito. Do you believe Mignini was present for her interview or not? Do you believe Sollecito when he said they tried to make a secret deal to implicate Amanda? Your the one living in a fairy tale fantasy. The books and the public speaking have only widened the cracks in their credibility.

The final conviction of Amanda on the callunia charge on the sort of evidence presented is more an indictment of the Italian justice system than any reflection on her. There is no way that conviction will survive scrutiny by the European Court of Human Rights.

 

[Alt+F4]

There is no way that conviction will survive scrutiny by the European Court of Human Rights.

What a joke. Amanda will be getting Social Security before those rejects from clown college even open her case.

 

[anglolawyer]

The fact that she is convicted of the calumnia doesn't mean that she in fact freely lied under the circumstances. Hellmann while not reversing the calumnia said that she should have withstood the pressure of the police.

She was not the first person to be convicted of a crime they didn't commit.

This PG talking point pales next to the statement by the chief that they knew what was correct before she signed the inaccurate statement. No PGP can explain how they knew Patrick was involved before Amanda's interrogation.

Henceforth, I decree that every time you mention this you also repeat that De Felice said at the same press conference they found text messages from Lumumba on her phone fixing a meeting,

 

[anglolawyer]

You can stand by someone someone who is a convicted liar and continues to embellish, change and have a different account from Sollecito. Do you believe Mignini was present for her interview or not? Do you believe Sollecito when he said they tried to make a secret deal to implicate Amanda? Your the one living in a fairy tale fantasy. The books and the public speaking have only widened the cracks in their credibility.

Gee, when you put it like that, it's kinda difficult. I guess it's all a question of what went down at the questura. Presumably we are all agreed on this:

The obsessive length of the interrogations, carried out during [both] day and night, by more than one person, on a young and foreign girl who at the time did not speak Italian at all well, was unaware of her own rights, did not have the assistance of an attorney (which she should have been entitled to, being at this point suspected of very serious crimes), and was moreover being assisted by an interpreter who — as shown by Ms. Bongiorno — did not limit herself to translating, but induced her to force herself to remember, explaining that she [Amanda] was confused in her memories, perhaps because of the trauma she experienced, makes it wholly understandable that she was in a situation of considerable psychological pressure (to call it stress seems an understatement [appare riduttivo]), enough to raise doubts about the actual spontaneity of her statements; a spontaneity which would have strangely [singolarmente] arisen in the middle of the night, after hours and hours of interrogation: the so-called spontaneous statements were made at 1:45 am (middle of the night) on 11-6-2007 (the day after the interrogation had started) and again at 5:45 am afterward, and the note was written a few hours later.

Those are findings of the judge whose conviction you say ought to make folks thing again before standing by her. Funny, because they don't have that effect on me. Why aren't you sympathetic?