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

[Antony]

In this case, Amanda was never free to leave. One of the officers testified that she was sent to block Amanda's exit in case she tried to leave should Raffaele start screaming.

Is it legal to arrange that a suspect cannot freely leave, without informing them that they are arrested?

 

[Dan O.]

Is it legal to arrange that a suspect cannot freely leave, without informing them that they are arrested?

It's a legal game that they play. They use intimidation to stop you from trying to leave so they can later say that they didn't stop you from leaving and therefore you weren't under arrest. Like when Amanda asked if she needed a lawyer and was told it would be worse for her if she got one.

 

[Briars]

Briars.... at least get your facts straight. "Sollecito" was not presented with conflicting phone evidence. He was asked which night Knox "went out" and was refused to means to sort out what happened when the week before.

Sollecito was called in to respond to phone evidence. The unusual, not their normal behaviour to shut their phoned off around the same time before 9pm. He arrived at the station at his leisure after dinner and dessert. The. statement about Amanda going out came out during his questioning. Please get your facts straight.

 

[Grinder]

I would like to see a transcript of Giobbi's testimony concerning who was called in that night to testify. I think the mathematical certainty comes from Perugia Shock but don't know if any other media wrote the same. Whether they counted on both showing up I can't say.

Perhaps, he was the only one reporting that, I don't remember for sure. Her appearing whether asked or not is another red herring. Why wouldn't she go with a killer on the loose? If she had stayed home the PGP would say she must have known it was safe to be alone.

There is not a recording of Raffaele's statements but there is the article in Corriere Della Sera with quotes from his November 5 statement (this document has not been public as far as I know) and statements given during his November 8 court hearing.

Why isn't there a recording? Where is the transcript? Why were the police allowed to leak from non-public documents?

And while you didn't ask me what I thought of the channel 5 recreation (which will air later today) I will give more validity to the recreations that take place in Perugia rather than those in the studio. I am especially intrigued by the climber going up the wall of the cottage.

Does that mean you accepted the CBS test of Nara's ability to hear and distinguish sounds?

You are intrigued by the climb recreation but not other things they do?

 

[Machiavelli]

You keep shifting the goalposts Mach.

You have (correctly) said she was strongly suspected before she arrived that night. I assume the police in Italy do not strongly suspect people against whom they have no serious evidence (a dangerous assumption perhaps, but one which accords at least with principle if not with its application in practice). Paragraph 1 of article 104 says:

You could try to argue she wasn't in custody but you would have to make us believe she was free to leave the questura at any point that night. I hope you don't think we are that stupid.

No, I'm not exactly the one who shifts the goalposts. Look who was complaining at the beginning that Mignini had an abusive conduct violating the law. But then, the final claim is reduced to Mignini allegedly not fully accomplishing a procedure, due to the lack of submission of a separate document with written reasons within the 40-42 hours prior to the Matteini hearing; a point of mere procedure that has been deemed as devoid of consequence by all judges (while you could see that application of art. 104 § 4 in that moment, as for the SC it was legally founded, because it met the "quid pluris" that defines exceptional gounds for caution).
Now it seems that by this claim, you kind of complain that Knox was not being arrested earlier. If you claim tha late application of art. 104 and the late declaration of formal susect, this means you claim the police should have anticipated the arrest of Amanda Knox.

I think that in colloquial terms it is correct to assume that Knox was probably suspected before she arrived that night. But it is incorrect to assume the police in Italy do not strongly suspect against as long as they have not enough evidence to arrest them or having them indicted. The police in fact suspected a number of other people in adition to Knox over that days (they were suspicious on the downstairs students, the were already suspicious on Rudy Guede from the very beginning (before they detected his fingerprint in the upstairs apartment), they also had "open" suspicions: meaning they assumed that there must have been some "external" element which they did not already have). They were indeed strongly suspicious on Amanda Knox, because they did not believe her mop-and-shower inconsistent story, because they detected ictu oculi physical traces from different modus operandi on the scene - an altered scene with multiple perpetrators - and because they had obvious phyisical evidence pointint to that the "break-in" was staged. However, they did not suspect Knox of being the murderer. Their suspicion - which was, legitimately, informal - was that she was covering-up for the actual murderer. They were not (informally) suspecting her for that charge for which they arrested her. They did not have "strong evidence" that she was directly implicated as an accomplice to the murder.

 

[Grinder]

Sollecito was called in to respond to phone evidence. The unusual, not their normal behaviour to shut their phoned off around the same time before 9pm. He arrived at the station at his leisure after dinner and dessert. The. statement about Amanda going out came out during his questioning. Please get your facts straight.

They had known each other for a week. What exactly was "normal behavior" for them regarding turning off phones. Is there a document showing this so-called pattern? Didn't think so.

They had talked to police for hours by that time. There was no urgency 4 days after the murder. Why shouldn't they finish their meals? Is that somehow incriminating? No it isn't but you seem unable not to introduce a red herring in every sentence.

As I recall he was asked if he were sure that she was home while he slept and he said no. He may have described the wrong night as he did with Massey.

It is so sad that they couldn't afford the recording of that interview.

Btw, did Massei show that Meredith had a history of fooling around with her cell phone as he claimed in his report? Didn't think so.

The whole turn off the phone meme has no weight or probative value. Why would they turn off phones instead of leaving them on and at Raf's. With luck someone might text them establishing their location.

 

[Bill Williams]

Sollecito was called in to respond to phone evidence. The unusual, not their normal behaviour to shut their phoned off around the same time before 9pm. He arrived at the station at his leisure after dinner and dessert. The. statement about Amanda going out came out during his questioning. Please get your facts straight.

So.... you know why Sollecito was called in. Just because they scatter-gunned Sollecito with questions meant to trip him up, does not establish that that was the reason they called him in.

Besides... IF they called him in over the "phones turned off" thing, please reread Grinder. What is "normal" for people who only knew each other a week?

The fact is that the cops already had their theory BEFORE calling Sollecito in - one cop said he was sure the Knox was also summoned. At interrogation it is not the goal, anyway, to establish fact. The goal of every interrogation everywhere is to get those being interrogated to confessed to the already established set of facts - established in the cops' minds.

"They buckled, and told us what we already knew."

 

[Dan O.]

Sollecito was called in to respond to phone evidence. The unusual, not their normal behaviour to shut their phoned off around the same time before 9pm. He arrived at the station at his leisure after dinner and dessert. The. statement about Amanda going out came out during his questioning. Please get your facts straight.

How can you be so wrong about so much for so long? You haven't got a shred of evidence to support any of that. It's almost like you are getting your facts from PMF except they occasionally by chance get things right.

 

[JREF2010]

It's a legal game that they play. They use intimidation to stop you from trying to leave so they can later say that they didn't stop you from leaving and therefore you weren't under arrest. Like when Amanda asked if she needed a lawyer and was told it would be worse for her if she got one.

a well known game for those who don't record interrogations.
the intimidation is what most people cannot even create a fictional version of as its so bizarre in some cases. yet, we all know the police aren't on trial the 30th.

even stupid tv shows like Law and Order (Special Crimes Unit series) have these intimidating interrogations in nearly every show, bending the law, sometimes going beyond the law and not getting caught...the good guys even do this much. but the point is made."thats how its done in real life".
Thin Blue Line is a true movie ...a million examples of even training how to interrogate and not get caught Steve Moore knows the certificate training.

so everyone knows, if the stew smells rotten it probably is...

Migninni answered the question; "budget cut's were the reason for not recording it". Migninni's not a very good liar, he should take lessons from Stefonani and Rudy Guede.

 

[Diocletus]

the were already suspicious on Rudy Guede from the very beginning (before they detected his fingerprint in the upstairs apartment),

Damn right they were. They found his DNA on her vaginal swab on November 6. Of course, they had nothing to match it to, so all it was good for was ruling out Solecito and Lumumba as the rapists.

They were not (informally) suspecting her for that charge for which they arrested her. They did not have "strong evidence" that she was directly implicated as an accomplice to the murder.

Oh, so they only suspected her of being an accessory after the fact. Well, that changes everything. Wait. No--it doesn't change anything.

 

[Diocletus]

If you claim tha late application of art. 104 and the late declaration of formal susect, this means you claim the police should have anticipated the arrest of Amanda Knox.

Indeed. They anticipated the arrest of Amanda Knox at 1:30 while they were typing out the paper that they were going to give her to sign.

 

[Diocletus]

a point of mere procedure that has been deemed as devoid of consequence by all judges (while you could see that application of art. 104 § 4 in that moment, as for the SC it was legally founded, because it met the "quid pluris" that defines exceptional gounds for caution).

I'm sorry, my Latin is a little rusty. Is "quid pluris" some type of animal excrement?

 

[christianahannah]

Perhaps, he was the only one reporting that, I don't remember for sure. Her appearing whether asked or not is another red herring. Why wouldn't she go with a killer on the loose? If she had stayed home the PGP would say she must have known it was safe to be alone.



Why isn't there a recording? Where is the transcript? Why were the police allowed to leak from non-public documents?



Does that mean you accepted the CBS test of Nara's ability to hear and distinguish sounds?

You are intrigued by the climb recreation but not other things they do?

I don't know how others would perceive Amanda's showing or non-showing. They called Raffaele late in the evening. For all we know the police may have assumed Amanda was working or they did want her to come but didn't call her hoping Raffaele would assume they wanted to question her too.

I don't know if the statements of Amanda and Raffaele were considered non-public documents just that we haven't seen Raffaele's statement in document form from that night (both Amanda's statements have been seen in document form). It could be that once the statements were filed journalists had access to them as far as their contents but that is just me guessing.

I am not sure what you mean by the CBS test of Nara? I haven't seen the channel 5 documentary but only in a few second video. I don't think it has aired before tonight. From the video I am not intrigued by the studio set recreation - it's not the actual cottage or mountain terrain, etc., however, the video showed a man climbing up the wall to Filomena's window of what appeared to be the actual cottage. I saw what is a possible reenactment of the rock being thrown through the window but it was done at close range and level to the window. I don't know if this was to simulate being thrown from the inside of the room or outside but it appeared it was done in the studio.

This and other experiments/recreations I will evaluate as I see them and will probably give more weight to those done in Perugia and by the creds of those doing the experiments.

 

[Briars]

And we know what happened when Amanda screamed. Raffaele was told there would be blood on the floor if he tried to help her.

LOL the pool of blood and phantom emails are new claims .

 

[cuki777]

cukipbs*51

I am just posting to say I am quitting the forum and to wish some buddies here goodbye (or see you elsewhere as the case may be).

finally the defence team catch a break

 

[Briars]

So.... you know why Sollecito was called in. Just because they scatter-gunned Sollecito with questions meant to trip him up, does not establish that that was the reason they called him in.

Besides... IF they called him in over the "phones turned off" thing, please reread Grinder. What is "normal" for people who only knew each other a week?

The fact is that the cops already had their theory BEFORE calling Sollecito in - one cop said he was sure the Knox was also summoned. At interrogation it is not the goal, anyway, to establish fact. The goal of every interrogation everywhere is to get those being interrogated to confessed to the already established set of facts - established in the cops' minds.

"They buckled, and told us what we already knew."

They had known each other for a week. What exactly was "normal behavior" for them regarding turning off phones. Is there a document showing this so-called pattern? Didn't think so.

They had talked to police for hours by that time. There was no urgency 4 days after the murder. Why shouldn't they finish their meals? Is that somehow incriminating? No it isn't but you seem unable not to introduce a red herring in every sentence.

As I recall he was asked if he were sure that she was home while he slept and he said no. He may have described the wrong night as he did with Massey.

It is so sad that they couldn't afford the recording of that interview.

Btw, did Massei show that Meredith had a history of fooling around with her cell phone as he claimed in his report? Didn't think so.

The whole turn off the phone meme has no weight or probative value. Why would they turn off phones instead of leaving them on and at Raf's. With luck someone might text them establishing their location.

No Red herring. How often do we hear that they were dragged in at a late hour,
Sollecito wanted to wait until after his late dinner and dessert.Amanda tagged along that is why she was left to stretch in the hall. Wasn't it Frank who claimed the officer said she was called in?


I think the police were able to see if and when either defendants were in a habit of turning off their phones.

 

[Briars]

So.... you know why Sollecito was called in. Just because they scatter-gunned Sollecito with questions meant to trip him up, does not establish that that was the reason they called him in.

Besides... IF they called him in over the "phones turned off" thing, please reread Grinder. What is "normal" for people who only knew each other a week?

The fact is that the cops already had their theory BEFORE calling Sollecito in - one cop said he was sure the Knox was also summoned. At interrogation it is not the goal, anyway, to establish fact. The goal of every interrogation everywhere is to get those being interrogated to confessed to the already established set of facts - established in the cops' minds.

"They buckled, and told us what we already knew."

How can you be so wrong about so much for so long? You haven't got a shred of evidence to support any of that. It's almost like you are getting your facts from PMF except they occasionally by chance get things right.

It is hard to take you seriously after you called me not human, actually the problem started much earlier

 

[Grinder]

I don't know how others would perceive Amanda's showing or non-showing. They called Raffaele late in the evening. For all we know the police may have assumed Amanda was working or they did want her to come but didn't call her hoping Raffaele would assume they wanted to question her too.

Could be.

I don't know if the statements of Amanda and Raffaele were considered non-public documents just that we haven't seen Raffaele's statement in document form from that night (both Amanda's statements have been seen in document form). It could be that once the statements were filed journalists had access to them as far as their contents but that is just me guessing.

Sure would think if they were public PMF/TJMK would have, after months of drum-rolls, produced the grand translation.

I am not sure what you mean by the CBS test of Nara? I haven't seen the channel 5 documentary but only in a few second video. I don't think it has aired before tonight. From the video I am not intrigued by the studio set recreation - it's not the actual cottage or mountain terrain, etc., however, the video showed a man climbing up the wall to Filomena's window of what appeared to be the actual cottage. I saw what is a possible reenactment of the rock being thrown through the window but it was done at close range and level to the window. I don't know if this was to simulate being thrown from the inside of the room or outside but it appeared it was done in the studio.

CBS did a sound test at the apartment house in the apartment next to Nara as she wouldn't cooperate. The test showed that she couldn't have heard the footsteps as she claimed.

This and other experiments/recreations I will evaluate as I see them and will probably give more weight to those done in Perugia and by the creds of those doing the experiments.

The courts in Italy have been very reluctant to do any analysis that the ILE didn't want done. Hell, the knife still hasn't been opened.

The Catch-22 here is that you resist accepting any tests done that aren't done in the actual setting but the ILE won't allow those tests to be carried out. We now have a neutral expert say it looks like the rock came from the outside BUT it would be easy to determine by looking at the glass. I think a reasonable person would conclude that the Italians should know that. Since they haven't shown that data, one can conclude that they looked at it and it proved the outside rock throw.

 

[Grinder]

No Red herring. How often do we hear that they were dragged in at a late hour,
Sollecito wanted to wait until after his late dinner and dessert.Amanda tagged along that is why she was left to stretch in the hall. Wasn't it Frank who claimed the officer said she was called in?

The red herring is the phones being turned off not that they were dragged in. No one says they were dragged in so that is a straw man. Someone upthread said it was Frank, and it isn't all that important. They asked Raf in and the two were together at all times except during class. She would not want to be alocene with a murderer on the loose.

Once again you mention finishing dinner, this time you add "late". Why does it matter that it was late or that he ate a dessert?

I think the police were able to see if and when either defendants were in a habit of turning off their phones.

Are you trying to be funny? How would they know if people were turning off their phones and when? Do you think under the circumstances people that normally turned their phones off might now leave them on?

Discussions in the past indicated that a phone being turned off doesn't leave a trail. A phone turning on would.

 

[codyjuneau]

I am just posting to say I am quitting the forum and to wish some buddies here goodbye (or see you elsewhere as the case may be).

.
I will miss your posts Anglo. Good luck, I hope everything is well for you.
.