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

[Machiavelli]

The central and critical lie on the part of the police and prosecutors is that they did not tape either Amanda's or Raffaele's interrogation on the night of Nov. 5th.

It's simply not believable. Not compatible with all their other behavior relative to recording the conversations of these two. It's false. And from that it follows like night follows day that those tapes would have shown exactly what Amanda and Raffaele have described.

There is absolutely no reason to trust any of them, unless and until they produce those tapes.

It's instead entirely consistent with the behavior of the police with all witnesses. And I'm very surprised of this uninformed comment. The police didn't record any other talk with witnesses. They behaved the same way with everybody. Their behavior is totally consistent.

Wiretappings and recording of private conversation is one thing. Usable in court btw. But talking with the police is police activity, it's normally secret, not usable, and must be redacted.

 

[Planigale]

Interestingly even Dr Who knows to analyse the fracture pattern on broken glass to determine which direction it was broken in. Shame that the Perugian police felt all that was needed was an assertion, but I suppose from their point of view what had they to gain by actually doing some forensic science, it would only prove them wrong.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)

Machiavelli - does this make this TV channel nothing but criminals now? How do you feel about Mignini being re-indicted for abuse of office?

Mignini is not indicted of anything.

I found out there is a hearing scheduled on Jan 15 2014, but it's not a trial. And there is no indictment. That is the preliminary hearing I was waiting for long time!
There is no request of indictment by the prosecution. But the case goes in the hand of the preliminary judge first, before being assessed by the prosecution office, as a procedure because this is from a case of territorial competence.

That preliminary judge in Turin will decide what to do with the investigation file on Giuttari and Mignini, and I tell you, there will be no trial. Nor indictment.
The only possible result will be a dropping of charges. The only question to see is the legal formula for that.

 

[Machiavelli]

I corrected what Bill meant to say. Speaking of lies... this is an incomplete list of lies told by police Bill WIlliams:

- Amanda HIV positive, list leaked to media to create idea that she was a sex maniac.
- Postal Police Battistelli’s statements about what time he arrived at the cottage, and whether or not he went into Meredith’s room, were both contradicted by witnesses, and eventually debunked by Massei's motivatioins report.
- The till at the shop were the bleach was supposedly purchased was checked and no record of any bleach sales were found. No bleach receipts were presented as evidence in the first trial. Michael of PMF.NET still claims to have the receipts, though.
- The prosecution leaked a photograph of the bathroom in the cottage where Amanda took a shower on the day the body of Meredith was discovered. The photograph showed a very bloody bathroom.
- The prosecution (Mignini-Comodi) lied about evidence of a clean up in Raffaele’s apartment.
- The police informed the media that Amanda and Raffaele used the washing machine to destroy evidence. According to the police the washing machine was coming to the end of its cycle when they arrived at the cottage. The washing machine contained Meredith's clothes but they were not the clothes Meredith wore at the time of the murder. At the first trial no mention was made of the washing machine running.
- Amanda claimed that she was reading a German edition of a Harry Potter book at Raffaele's apartment. The prosecution informed the media that the German Harry Potter was actually at the cottage. This was used to undermine Amanda's alibi.
- In the first trial prosecutor Manuela Comodi claimed that Amanda phoned her mother at 12.00 pm before anything had happened at the cottage to cause concern. Amanda did not make this call until 12.47 pm.
- Dr Lorenzo Rinaldi who worked for the prosecution lied about the size of Rudy's foot to give the impression that Rudy's foot was too big to make the bloody footprint on the bathmat.
- Stefanoni the forensic scientist working for the police claimed that the footprints in the hallway which according to the prosecution were made after Amanda stepped in Meredith's blood were only tested with luminol and no tests were done with TMB to confirm if the footprints were made with blood. Under pressure from the defense, it was revealed that the footprints were actually tested with TMB and were negative for blood.
- Stefanoni claimed she changed gloves every time she handled a new sample. Raffaele's defense proved she was lying.
- Judge Massei claimed that the text message from Patrick to Amanda went through a tower which did not cover Raffaele's apartment. This was used to imply that Amanda had left Raffaele's apartment. The tower did in fact cover Raffaele's apartment.​

(...)

 

[Machiavelli]

Exactly. Even Machiavelli admits that the 30-40 metres distance in street lights at night "is a problem" for his side, and in another message he qualifies his assertions in a way that acknowledges that it's not certain that the people seen were actually AK and RS.
(...)

About 30 meters (not 40). A problem in Curatolo's testimony, not "for my side".

 

[Supernaut]

This whole subject fascinates me, the social conditioning that influences how people perceive things. This is my favorite example, which I have mentioned before:

http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&File_Id=5136

Do you believe that you're someone who has freed yourself from all such "conditioning", "belief" or "pathological thinking", and that you now perceive nothing but the "unvarnished truth"?

 

[Bill Williams]

I corrected what Bill meant to say. Speaking of lies... this is an incomplete list of lies told by police Bill WIlliams:

- Amanda HIV positive, list leaked to media to create idea that she was a sex maniac.
- Postal Police Battistelli’s statements about what time he arrived at the cottage, and whether or not he went into Meredith’s room, were both contradicted by witnesses, and eventually debunked by Massei's motivatioins report.
- The till at the shop were the bleach was supposedly purchased was checked and no record of any bleach sales were found. No bleach receipts were presented as evidence in the first trial. Michael of PMF.NET still claims to have the receipts, though.
- The prosecution leaked a photograph of the bathroom in the cottage where Amanda took a shower on the day the body of Meredith was discovered. The photograph showed a very bloody bathroom.
- The prosecution (Mignini-Comodi) lied about evidence of a clean up in Raffaele’s apartment.
- The police informed the media that Amanda and Raffaele used the washing machine to destroy evidence. According to the police the washing machine was coming to the end of its cycle when they arrived at the cottage. The washing machine contained Meredith's clothes but they were not the clothes Meredith wore at the time of the murder. At the first trial no mention was made of the washing machine running.
- Amanda claimed that she was reading a German edition of a Harry Potter book at Raffaele's apartment. The prosecution informed the media that the German Harry Potter was actually at the cottage. This was used to undermine Amanda's alibi.
- In the first trial prosecutor Manuela Comodi claimed that Amanda phoned her mother at 12.00 pm before anything had happened at the cottage to cause concern. Amanda did not make this call until 12.47 pm.
- Dr Lorenzo Rinaldi who worked for the prosecution lied about the size of Rudy's foot to give the impression that Rudy's foot was too big to make the bloody footprint on the bathmat.
- Stefanoni the forensic scientist working for the police claimed that the footprints in the hallway which according to the prosecution were made after Amanda stepped in Meredith's blood were only tested with luminol and no tests were done with TMB to confirm if the footprints were made with blood. Under pressure from the defense, it was revealed that the footprints were actually tested with TMB and were negative for blood.
- Stefanoni claimed she changed gloves every time she handled a new sample. Raffaele's defense proved she was lying.
- Judge Massei claimed that the text message from Patrick to Amanda went through a tower which did not cover Raffaele's apartment. This was used to imply that Amanda had left Raffaele's apartment. The tower did in fact cover Raffaele's apartment.
(...)

Fortunately for anyone interested, all this is verifiable. Go for it, Machiavelli..... but thanks for quoting it and keeping it in front of people.

 

[LondonJohn]

It's one thing when an eyewitness is sure they saw someone they already knew. Someone they would recognise. But this malarkey of trying to identify a stranger, seen only once, from a bunch of photographs or a line-up, is absolutely wide open to mistaken identification.

How similar do you think these guys look?


Rolfe.

Ah the great "De Menezes/Osman" mix-up.

This is an interesting example. The surveillance team had photographs of their suspect, Osman (the one on the left, for those who didn't know). Some have accused the surveillance officers of willful recklessness in their identification of De Menezes as Osman, but I think the truth is probably more nuanced than that.

I think that the surveillance team truly thought they were looking at Osman with absolute certainty. They knew they were looking for a man in his 20s with an average height/build and a non-Caucasian ethnicity. They also knew that the stakes were potentially enormously high, with the cost of failure being potentially catastrophic to the public (as well as to their own careers....).

When they saw De Menezes exit the flats, therefore, I think they allowed all sorts of psychological phenomena (confirmation bias, misplaced statistical analysis of target vs suspect, sheer fear of letting a terrorist get free from under their noses) that they quickly and genuinely convinced themselves that they were looking at Osman. In fact, I believe it's highly likely that more than one of the surveillance team looked at a photo of Osman, looked at De Menezes, and said with total confidence: "Yep, that's our man".

Of course, you and I can look at the two photos in the cold light of day (and in the knowledge that the police/authorities made a blatant misidentification) and say, with genuine astonishment: "But those two men bear only the most passing of resemblances to each other - there's no way that you could mistake one for the other". If those surveillance officers looked at the photos today, I am very confident that they would say exactly the same thing (if they were being honest). But under those circumstances, in that situation, I think they fell prey to various psychological devices (and group-psychological devices which only tended to reinforce the mistake) that led them to genuinely - but erroneously - believe they were looking at Osman.

Of course, if that's the case, then the question then arises of why this level of surveillance officers were not sufficiently trained to remove (or at least to minimise) their susceptibility to these sorts of phenomena.

(Oh and let's not even go into the subsequent catalogue of grotesque errors and willful malpractice that culminated in De Menezes lying dead - essentially executed at point-blank range - on the floor of a tube carriage.......)

 

[LondonJohn]

For those who want to see Italian TV covering the "Justice Wasted" coverage of Manuela Comodi and the wasted 180,000 Euros on a cartoon....

http://www.video.mediaset.it/video/tg5/servizio/422439/giustizia-sprecona-.html

Machiavelli - does this make this TV channel nothing but criminals now? How do you feel about Mignini being re-indicted for abuse of office?

I'm still waiting for Machiavelli to address my seven questions about the animation, after he so had generously asked me if I had any questions on the matter.

I guess I'm not holding my breath for a response.

 

[Bill Williams]

Mignini is not indicted of anything.

I found out there is a hearing scheduled on Jan 15 2014, but it's not a trial. And there is no indictment. That is the preliminary hearing I was waiting for long time!
There is no request of indictment by the prosecution. But the case goes in the hand of the preliminary judge first, before being assessed by the prosecution office, as a procedure because this is from a case of territorial competence.

That preliminary judge in Turin will decide what to do with the investigation file on Giuttari and Mignini, and I tell you, there will be no trial. Nor indictment.
The only possible result will be a dropping of charges. The only question to see is the legal formula for that.

Machiavelli, you cannot possibly spin this as good news! You get "E" for "Effort" for the attempt.

Guilters have been saying that this charge against Mignini would simply lapse because of the time limit. It seems that the Giudice del'Udienza Primaria has not allowed that to happen. Apparently this happened Nov 22.

It's a trial, Machiavelli. You'd be a better friend to Mr. Mignini by telling him to mount a defence rather than this stuff...

And remember, he's innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Bill Williams]

I'm still waiting for Machiavelli to address my seven questions about the animation, after he so had generously asked me if I had any questions on the matter.

I guess I'm not holding my breath for a response.

You may need to repost the questions, LJ. Machiavelli seems to be having his hands full lately defending Manuela Comodi and Mignini....

 

[LondonJohn]

I want to know if Filomena had drugs in her room and, if so, whether she checked for or removed them from her room when she retrieved her laptop. If she did have drugs in her room, I would think she would be very concerned that they could be found by the police and used to compromise her, an apprentice lawyer beginning her legal career in Perugia, her hometown.

When she removed her laptop (and possibly any drugs she might have had), how much disturbance did she cause to the distribution pattern of broken glass in her room? Did her disruption contribute to the early police conclusion that the window break-in was fake - and thus cause the police and Mignini to pursue a wrong suspect-centric investigation and prosecution - with great damage to many including Italy. Did Filomena tell the police the true extent of what she touched, opened, and disturbed in her room? Would she really admit to messing up the original glass distribution pattern or did she downplay it?

Lastly, did the police find her drugs in her room and upon Napoleoni's or Mignini's order their existence withheld from the records in order to initially protect her as a "good Italian girl"? And later was it leverage to ensure she went along with the prosecution?

Hypothetical:

What if Filomena had had a stash of drugs? What if she had been hiding her stash of drugs somewhere in her room? What if, for example, her stash had been perhaps hidden behind or under the clothing in her closet?

Might Filomena therefore have had both the motive and the opportunity to rush into her bedroom, ostensibly to retrieve her laptop, but also to retrieve her stash? Might she therefore have quickly turfed belongings over (perhaps, say, clothes from within the closet) to locate and pocket the stash? Might that not possibly therefore account for at least some of the state of her room by the time it came to be photographed and properly documented later that afternoon?

Of course this is only a hypothetical. But still................

 

[Poppy1016]

I'm still waiting for Machiavelli to address my seven questions about the animation, after he so had generously asked me if I had any questions on the matter.

I guess I'm not holding my breath for a response.

Be patient. It takes time to compose his 3000 word answers.

 

[kwill]

It's instead entirely consistent with the behavior of the police with all witnesses.

CNN: Why wasn’t there any video or transcript of those hours?

Mignini: Look, that’s, I was at the police station, and all the…let’s say…when I made investigations in my own office, I taped them. I taped them, we have an apparatus for that, and I transcribed them. For example, there’s the interrogation of the English girls, Meredith’s friends, it was all taped. The interrogations of Amanda in prison were taped, and then transcribed, and we have the transcripts of…

But in a police station, at the very moment of the investigation it isn’t done, not with respect to Amanda or anyone else. Also because, I can tell you, today, even then, but today in particular, we have budget problems, budget problems that are not insignificant, which do not allow us to transcribe. Video is very important…

I completely agree with you that videotaping is extremely important, we should be able to have a video recording of every statement [verbale di assunzione di informazioni] made Because what is said is very important, but it’s maybe even more important how it is said, the non-verbal language. Because from the non-verbal language you can [missing words].


Mignini: It isn’t only Amanda, it’s always like that. But I wanted to say that I agree with him that it’s fundamental, only there’s a problem, especially when the witnesses are so numerous, and in fact just recording, I mean recording the sound, isn’t enough according to me.

I'm sorry, but what did he just say?
He always tapes in his own office and has transcripts made.
He taped what Amanda said while she was in prison.
He says no one is taped at the police station during an investigation, because the cost of making transcripts would be too much for the budget.
He says that video would be better, because then body language could be read.

What a liar. We know that Amanda and Raffaele were taped while they were in a bugged room at the police station, and that tape was transcribed.

And he lies by implication, when he conflates the questioning of the English women -- who were not suspects -- with the interrogation of Amanda, who certainly was.

The police didn't record any other talk with witnesses. They behaved the same way with everybody. Their behavior is totally consistent.

Mignini just said they did. Is he lying?

Wiretappings and recording of private conversation is one thing. Usable in court btw. But talking with the police is police activity, it's normally secret, not usable, and must be redacted.

If this is true, why were the English women's conversations with Mignini taped? And why does Mignini suggest that budget problems prevent taping of police interviews? Why not just tell the interviewer what you just said, that in Italy suspects can be questioned in complete secrecy, and no one can know what happens during those interviews? If that's the case, why pretend that it was simply too expensive?

He's a liar.

 

[Bill Williams]

We need to start a list. Come Jan 15, Machiavelli will be denying he'd ever said that the trial against Mignini for abuse of office was only a preliminary hearing.

It seems Machiavelli says a lot of things which need "clarification" or "spin" when the record becomes clear.

 

[Bill Williams]

I'm sorry, but what did he just say?
He always tapes in his own office and has transcripts made.
He taped what Amanda said while she was in prison.
He says no one is taped at the police station during an investigation, because the cost of making transcripts would be too much for the budget.
He says that video would be better, because then body language could be read.

What a liar. We know that Amanda and Raffaele were taped while they were in a bugged room at the police station, and that tape was transcribed.

And he lies by implication, when he conflates the questioning of the English women -- who were not suspects -- with the interrogation of Amanda, who certainly was.



Mignini just said they did. Is he lying?



If this is true, why were the English women's conversations with Mignini taped? And why does Mignini suggest that budget problems prevent taping of police interviews? Why not just tell the interviewer what you just said, that in Italy suspects can be questioned in complete secrecy, and no one can know what happens during those interviews? If that's the case, why pretend that it was simply too expensive?

He's a liar.

Nice catch kwill.

Now Machiavelli is a proven liar.

 

[Machiavelli]

I'm sorry, but what did he just say?
He always tapes in his own office and has transcripts made.
He taped what Amanda said while she was in prison.
(...)

But Mignini is talking about interrogation of formal suspects.
You are talking about interrogation of police witnesses (informants).

This is two completely different things.
Statements of suspects are usable, they are trial matter; statements of informants are not, they are investigation stuff.

 

[Machiavelli]

Nice catch kwill.

Now Machiavelli is a proven liar.

I suggest you quit this nonsense void insulting.

 

[Machiavelli]

We need to start a list. Come Jan 15, Machiavelli will be denying he'd ever said that the trial against Mignini for abuse of office was only a preliminary hearing.

It seems Machiavelli says a lot of things which need "clarification" or "spin" when the record becomes clear.

You would need to provide quite an amount of clarification.
However it's useless because usually you would start repeating the same things again after some time.

 

[Skind]

But Mignini is talking about interrogation of formal suspects.
You are talking about interrogation of police witnesses (informants).

This is two completely different things.
Statements of suspects are usable, they are trial matter; statements of informants are not, they are investigation stuff.

None of Merediths friends were formal suspects, yet Mignini has just said he taped them all.

You are wrong.

You.

Are.

Wrong.

Not right. Wrong.

False. Wrong. Not correct.