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

[Grinder]

I agree, Sherlock. That was one of the reasons Seattle got a visit and lengthy review from the Justice Department. They still have a long way to go toward restoring their image.

Nope. That was a King County sheriff's deputy and has nothing to do with the DOJ overseeing the SPD.

ETA - While I thought the behavior went past acceptable police behavior, at least our system put him on trial twice. The first jury almost convicted but by the second trial his attorneys learned something (see they can change).

Most important vis-a-vis this case is that even in the cells video records what is going on. We can't know but is likely that had the interrogation been recorded we wouldn't be here now.

 

[Mary_H]

Nope. That was a King County sheriff's deputy and has nothing to do with the DOJ overseeing the SPD.

You are correct, of course, Grinder, but I don't think most people who see these videos on the news care as much about which department was responsible as they care about the culture of violence that has developed in the whole area. That's what leads them to complain.

Most important vis-a-vis this case is that even in the cells video records what is going on. We can't know but is likely that had the interrogation been recorded we wouldn't be here now.

I hate to break it to you, but everything was recorded.

 

[Grinder]

I hate to break it to you, but everything was recorded.

You have the same source as Bill?

What do you think happened to the recording? Was it destroyed immediately? Was it destroyed by accident when they tried to clone (copy) the disc?

A media outlet would sure pay a pretty penny for that recording or just the story of how it came to be erased or destroyed.

How many people do you think were involved in this conspiracy?

 

[Grinder]

Raf did a little of what I've been advocating - He is lacking in specifics but keeps saying to read the documents.

His English is still weak and a spokesman is called for but it gives me some hope.

Youtube

 

[Diocletus]

Interesting comment from the lawyer.

He talks about a series of "mistakes." The he goes on to explain how there was a first "mistake" and then a second "mistake" to "cover" up for the first one, and so on.

Perhaps this could suggest that they are going to put the prosecution on trial, so to speak, by examining the chain of "mistakes." That would be a good idea.

What occurs to me, though, is that a "mistake" made for the purpose of covering something up isn't a "mistake" at all. It's a euphemism.

 

[Grinder]

Besides pissing off the PGP I'm not sure why they are doing british TV unless it's practice. Hope it is.

I don't see any point in calling them anything but mistakes.

Hope they start doing the productions themselves and use spokespeople sitting next to Raf and Amanda.

They need to recognize the power of Youtube.

 

[Diocletus]

I actually like Sollecito's case with Knox out of the picture. First of all, it has to improve his standing in the tabloids since the intrigue and spite seems to flow in the direction of Knox.

Second, there isn't much "evidence" against him. No callunia. No knife. No shoeprints. No Quintavalle sighting.

They have the contaminated clasp, which even the ISC criticized. They have the ginned-up Rudy-footprint. Not much else that is in any way impressive. Plus, he has the new computer evidence.

They could ask him whether he was with Knox all night, and all he would need to say is: from what I can remember, she was always there when I was awake and she was there in the morning when I woke up. I expect that she was there all night, as I was, and I certainly have no reason to believe that she was anywhere else. Who could fault this?

 

[Methos]

Calunnia vs. Diffamazione

Maybe the Italian terms should be used from now on:
Calunnia:

Art. 368 - calunnia.
Chiunque, con denunzia, querela , richiesta o istanza, anche se anonima o sotto falso nome, diretta all'autorità giudiziaria o ad un'altra autorità che a quella abbia obbligo di riferirne, incolpa di un reato taluno che egli sa innocente, ovvero simula a carico di lui le tracce di un reato, è punito con la reclusione da due a sei anni.
La pena è aumentata se s'incolpa taluno di un reato pel quale la legge stabilisce la pena della reclusione superiore nel massimo a dieci anni, o un'altra pena più grave.
La reclusione è da quattro a dodici anni, se dal fatto deriva una condanna alla reclusione superiore a cinque anni; è da sei a venti anni, se dal fatto deriva una condanna all'ergastolo; e si applica la pena dell'ergastolo, se dal fatto deriva una condanna alla pena di morte .

google translation:

Art 368 - slander.
Anyone with denunciation, complaint, demand or request, even if anonymously or under a false name, direct the judicial authority or other authority that has the obligation to report, blames a crime that he knows Taluno innocent, that simulates charged him the traces of a crime, shall be punished with imprisonment from two to six years.
The penalty is increased if es'incolpa Taluno of a crime according to which the law prescribes a term of imprisonment for a maximum of ten years, or another more serious penalty.
The imprisonment of from four to twelve years if the act results in a prison sentence of more than five years is from six to twenty years if the act results in a life sentence, and apply a life sentence, if the fact results in a condemnation to death.

Diffamazione:

Art. 595 - diffamazione.
Chiunque, fuori dei casi indicati nell'articolo precedente, comunicando con più persone, offende l'altrui reputazione, è punito con la reclusione fino a un anno o con la multa fino a euro 1.032.
Se l'offesa consiste nell'attribuzione di un fatto determinato, la pena è della reclusione fino a due anni, ovvero della multa fino a euro 2.065.
Se l'offesa è recata col mezzo della stampa o con qualsiasi altro mezzo di pubblicità, ovvero in atto pubblico, la pena è della reclusione da sei mesi a tre anni o della multa non inferiore a euro 516.
Se l'offesa è recata a un Corpo politico, amministrativo o giudiziario, o ad una sua rappresentanza o ad una autorità costituita in collegio, le pene sono aumentate.

google translation:

Art 595 - defamation.
Whoever, apart from the cases mentioned in the previous article, communicating with more people, injures another's reputation, shall be punished with imprisonment up to one year or a fine of up to € 1,032.
If the offense is the allocation of a given fact, the punishment shall be imprisonment of up to two years, or a fine of up to € 2,065.
If the offense went with the press or by any other means of advertising or public document, the penalty shall be imprisonment from six months to three years or a fine of not less than EUR 516.
If the offense went to a political body, administrative or judicial, or to a representation or a constituted authority in college, the penalties are increased.

and:

Art. 596-bis - diffamazione col mezzo della stampa.
Se il delitto di diffamazione è commesso col mezzo della stampa le disposizioni dell'articolo precedente si applicano anche al direttore o vice-direttore responsabile, all'editore e allo stampatore, per i reati preveduti negli articoli 57, 57-bis e 58.

google translation:

Article 596-bis - with defamation through the press.
If the crime of defamation is committed by means of printing the provisions of the preceding Article shall also apply to the director or deputy director responsible, the publisher and the printer, for the offenses provided for in Articles 57, 57 bis and 58.

The ignored article is this one:

Art. 598 Offese in scritti e discorsi pronunciati dinanzi alle autorità giudiziarie o amministrative.
Non sono punibili le offese contenute negli scritti presentati o nei discorsi pronunciati dalle parti o dai loro patrocinatori nei procedimenti dinanzi all'autorità giudiziaria, ovvero dinanzi a un'autorità amministrativa, quando le offese concernono l'oggetto della causa o del ricorso amministrativo. Il giudice, pronunciando nella causa, può, oltre ai provvedimenti disciplinari, ordinare la soppressione o la cancellazione, in tutto o in parte, delle scritture offensive, e assegnare alla persona offesa una somma a titolo di risarcimento del danno non patrimoniale. Qualora si tratti di scritture per le quali la soppressione o cancellazione non possa eseguirsi, è fatta sulle medesime annotazione della sentenza.

google translation:

Article 598 Offenses in writings and speeches before the judicial or administrative authorities.
Not punishable are offenses contained in the writings or speeches presented by the parties or their counsel in proceedings before a court or before an administrative authority, when the offenses relate to the subject matter of the case or administrative appeal. The judge, ruling in the proceedings may, in addition to disciplinary action, order the removal or obliteration, in whole or in part, of the scriptures offensive, and give the victim a sum by way of compensation for non-pecuniary damage. In the case of records for which the removal or obliteration can not be executed, it is done on the same record of the judgment.

This is the article that saves Pacelli from being sued by Amanda Knox for calling her a "she-devil", "witch of deceit" and so on...

http://www.leggeonline.info/

 

[Antony]

Maybe the Italian terms should be used from now on:
Calunnia:
google translation:

The above means that the Mignini crew are by rights subject to 4 to 12 years in clink for their false accusations against Amanda and Raff.

Diffamazione:
google translation:


and:
google translation:



The ignored article is this one:
google translation:
This is the article that saves Pacelli from being sued by Amanda Knox for calling her a "she-devil", "witch of deceit" and so on...

http://www.leggeonline.info/

... and should have protected Amanda from any threats against her for raising in court the physical abuse she suffered during the all-night interrogation.

 

[Grinder]

I actually like Sollecito's case with Knox out of the picture. First of all, it has to improve his standing in the tabloids since the intrigue and spite seems to flow in the direction of Knox.

Second, there isn't much "evidence" against him. No callunia. No knife. No shoeprints. No Quintavalle sighting.

They have the contaminated clasp, which even the ISC criticized. They have the ginned-up Rudy-footprint. Not much else that is in any way impressive. Plus, he has the new computer evidence.

They could ask him whether he was with Knox all night, and all he would need to say is: from what I can remember, she was always there when I was awake and she was there in the morning when I woke up. I expect that she was there all night, as I was, and I certainly have no reason to believe that she was anywhere else. Who could fault this?

The footprint is the most serious of all the evidence if you believe it's Raf's. They to debunk the grid system used by the ILE.

What new computer evidence?

He claimed in his book that he was emailing late into the night. When did he sleep?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

gridlock

The footprint is the most serious of all the evidence if you believe it's Raf's. They to debunk the grid system used by the ILE.

What new computer evidence?

He claimed in his book that he was emailing late into the night. When did he sleep?

The problem is in Rinaldi's erroneous measurements. IIRC Professor Vinci also used a grid. Raffaele did not specify anything about the time that he was emailing. I am guessing that it was early in the morning (between, say, 3 and 9 AM).

 

[Grinder]

The problem is in Rinaldi's erroneous measurements. IIRC Professor Vinci also used a grid. Raffaele did not specify anything about the time that he was emailing. I am guessing that it was early in the morning (between, say, 3 and 9 AM).

I thought that the prosecution's expert used a grid system that had been debunked. I'm sure you know the name.

Did Vinci use the same system?

 

[Mary_H]

You have the same source as Bill?

Bill is my source -- no, lol, just kidding.

What do you think happened to the recording? Was it destroyed immediately? Was it destroyed by accident when they tried to clone (copy) the disc?

It is safely hidden somewhere.

A media outlet would sure pay a pretty penny for that recording or just the story of how it came to be erased or destroyed.

And perhaps someday they will.

How many people do you think were involved in this conspiracy?

Maybe three or four. Mignini, Ficarra, Giobbi. Maybe Comodi.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Louise Robbins and the grid

I thought that the prosecution's expert used a grid system that had been debunked. I'm sure you know the name.

Did Vinci use the same system?

It was the grid of Louise Robbins, if I am not mistaken. Robbins was a charlatan, but I don't believe the problem was the grid, which might not have even been her idea.

 

[Grinder]

Maybe three or four. Mignini, Ficarra, Giobbi. Maybe Comodi.

How many people do you think knew of the recording? I would imagine it would have be at least the twelve plus any technicians. There would also be any close people they mentioned it to.

When would they have decided to hide the recording's existence?

I just have a very hard time believing that anyone outside the ILE could know without it going viral. Hard to believe that no one has sold the story. Not even an anonymous story to Feinstein or Hoyle?

 

[Dan O.]

Maybe three or four. Mignini, Ficarra, Giobbi. Maybe Comodi.

What's the purpose for this conspiracy? Together they would only want to cover up what really happened in the interrogations.

Individually, they may each desire to hold a copy of the recorded interrogation to use as leverage against the others. It may even be possible that there are multiple recordings.

Mignini uses a pocket digital recorder. Is he ever without it? Mignini was conducting the second interrogation personally. He could have turned on his recorder before entering the room and nobody old be any wiser.

Giobbie was in the control room at the time of the interrogations. H could have pulled a personal copy from there.

Any one else could have also pulled a copy of the recordings before they were purged. Would Italy have access logs covering that equipment and those data files?

 

[RWVBWL]

"See you later"

The evidence used to hold Patrick as well as Amanda and Raffaele is all listed in the Matteini report of November 9.

As I recall, the key elements were: Patrick's friend Usi only had one name. The lack of bar receipts for the early evening. Gerardo said the bar was closed (contrary to all the patrons). Patrick changed phones. Amanda and Patrick didn't remember exactly the same words for the text Patrick sent. Anamda's text saying she would meet Patrick. A ping of Patrick's phone to a tower near the cottage. And the statement coerced from Amanda's interrogations.

I read an interesting post written by FS about Lumumba after he interviewed Diya. As I'd never heard anyone mention it before, here it is:

While waiting for Supreme Court ruling, I thought about fixing some old problems that I had totally left behind. Such as the position of Patrick, since he was exonerated.
His case has been instructive for us. It shows, for instance, how a PM can influence a GIP.
Indeed, Dr. Mignini reported that the message Amanda sent to Patrick was ".... See you later." He forgot to include the last sentence of the sms, which was "Good night." Obviously, that "Good night" changes the meaning of the "see you later" completely.
The GIP did not verify directly, so a second element apparently against Patrick was packaged. At least until the lawyers got ahold of that evidence and the truth came out.
So we shouldn't be worried when we are accused. If we are innocent, we have to know that even if the PM and the police play in their usual way, and even if a GIP trusts them blindly, in the end the truth will emerge.

I waited for a long time before going to see to Patrick. I wanted to talk to him long after the stressful days had passed. In my head, it was my way of celebrating his innocence and clarifying some remaining elements. Something I already knew but that I wanted to hear directly from him. But even four months later, even after normal life has resumed, it wasn't easy. I've found a very different person from the one I new before and the one who appears publicly.
He agreed to be interviewed for this website, but after just a few words he got madder and madder for --I believe-- no reason. After five minutes he was yelling at the top of his voice and hitting the table over and over with all his strength.
He must be very anxious because of the questions journalists still ask him, and he probably reacted to me the way he cannot react with perfect strangers.

By the way, taking out all the insults (from one side) and all the apologies (from the other side) I can try to isolate a few things he told me in the rage of that totally out-of-control conversation.

"I have a Vodafone SIM. It doesn't "work" in the bar and I always leave it here, you see, just here. It's the only place where it "works" a little bit. That evening my cellphone was here. I don't know how it could have hooked the cell of via S.Antonio. Now that you ask me, I have to remember to ask my lawyers because it's really a mystery for me.

"It's not true what the Sunday Mirror reported about what I said about the police, I already explained that on Matrix.

"Sunday Mirror ... Mail on Sunday, I don't know... What you read in the newspapers is always fake. If they reported my own words they reported them wrongly. Unless you play me a tape. With Gente it happened the same about what a journalist wrote. We had to tell Gente to change what the journalist had reported that I had said and they didn't have a record. They had to apologize.

"The police did not treat me badly. They just did their job. And the police are the police. They're not supposed to be kind or sweet--otherwise, what kind of police are they?

"Amanda accused me because it's normal in the States accusing a "negro". If you take all the "negros" who are in jail in the States... out of 20, 19 are inside unjustly. They just put the blame on them. And Amanda did the same... The way she learned.

"They couldn't have come to ask for my suggestions after having made the trouble, because we weren't friends.
Yes, she was working for me but that doesn't mean we were friends. You remember, for instance, those girls we were meeting in the past? Those were friends. And they weren't working with us. But Amanda absolutely wasn't. It's normal. Rarely people who work together are friends. This is not a joke. I have a son, even if they had asked me a suggestion, even when everything was already done, I would have immediately called the police because I have a wife and a son, I understand what that means losing a son. It's not a joke. It's not like... "What should I do, I broke the bathroom or the kitchen". She really ruined my life.

"There's not a price for what I'm going through. No, it's not over. People still point at me as a murderer. Still now, yes, and they will always do it. Why don't you ask my wife what she's going through. Yes, still now. The little bit of money is nothing for me. I've always been rich by family. People take a mortgage to buy a house, I paid in cash. Why don't you go to check? And I've taken this place as a "business lease". I pay rent here. And it has even been closed for a long time.You should ask me if I've really taken those money.

"Of course it's not true that I sold the re-opening of the bar! And who should I have sold it to? Not even to S.M., what do you know of S.M? I just didn't want the journalists inside that evening! Because I just wanted to stay quiet, without journalists. Out of respect for Meredith.

"How can you ask me if I've really taken this money after the fifteen years that you know me? I had to pay the lawyers, you know this? And the bar was closed!"
A technical explanation of his sim hooking the cell of via S.Antonio is kindly provided to me by his lawyer. Patrick and Amanda exchanged their sms while he was at the bar and she in Corso Garibaldi. In the middle there's via S.Antonio, and that's why it appeared that Patrick's cellphone was in via S.Antonio instead of the bar.
The lawyer uses the occasion to remind me that even the presumed change of cellphone never occurred, whatever importance it may have had. If you ask, just to know, why Patrick admitted it, even the lawyer gets mad...
Things that are not that difficult to explain, it seems. No reason to overreact. But... It's up to your personal taste.

I've already apologized to Patrick if my questions were so uncomfortable, so terrible. But it was just in order to have his answers. The answer, that's what counts. If someone reports the wrong answer, that's when you have to get mad.

By the way, I had always defined Patrick as the mildest and most innocuous person in Perugia. Especially when everyone thought he was the murderer. Now, of course, I've changed my mind. I've seen a different Patrick, and I hope that while talking to me he didn't break his hand. Or his table. It's in these critical moments that you really come to know how someone truly is. And this time I found a person who is innocent, yes, but not nice to talk to. And a "heavy" atmosphere, a sad pub where you don't have fun anymore.

Better leave him alone for the next couple of years and, especially, never tell him "See you later".

 

[Mary_H]

How many people do you think knew of the recording? I would imagine it would have be at least the twelve plus any technicians. There would also be any close people they mentioned it to.

Anyone working in the Questura would know that every room and every interaction is recorded. However, only the bosses have the power to obtain tapes.

When would they have decided to hide the recording's existence?

Right after the interrogations. It may be standard procedure.

I just have a very hard time believing that anyone outside the ILE could know without it going viral. Hard to believe that no one has sold the story. Not even an anonymous story to Feinstein or Hoyle?

No one outside the ILE does know. No one who knows has a stake in anybody else knowing what goes on inside the Questura, especially not in this case.

 

[Mary_H]

What's the purpose for this conspiracy? Together they would only want to cover up what really happened in the interrogations.

Right.

Individually, they may each desire to hold a copy of the recorded interrogation to use as leverage against the others. It may even be possible that there are multiple recordings.

Ha, that would be interesting.

Mignini uses a pocket digital recorder. Is he ever without it? Mignini was conducting the second interrogation personally. He could have turned on his recorder before entering the room and nobody old be any wiser.

Giobbie was in the control room at the time of the interrogations. H could have pulled a personal copy from there.

Both are possibilities.

Any one else could have also pulled a copy of the recordings before they were purged. Would Italy have access logs covering that equipment and those data files?

Yes. They are as accurate as the logs about the time the police arrived at the cottage, and as well maintained as the computer hard drives.

 

[RandyN]

Maybe the Italian terms should be used from now on:
Calunnia:
google translation:



Diffamazione:
google translation:


and:
google translation:



The ignored article is this one: google translation: This is the article that saves Pacelli from being sued by Amanda Knox for calling her a "she-devil", "witch of deceit" and so on...
http://www.leggeonline.info/

Interesting if this is true then how could Knox be charged for testifying about being struck by police during her interrogation? And for that matter how can she be charged for the written (in Italian) statements about Lumumba during her interrogation? I recall that the SC ruled these writings inadmissible since she was never represented by an attorney. And perhaps the gift statement may seem different but once again Knox was not provided...and in fact she was prohibited from speaking to her attorney.