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

[JREF2010]

The calls are recorded and transcribed so there is no excuse not to see at what point he says there is no theft and what led to that.

I guess they didn't have the budget cuts Mignini spoke of for the interrogation not being recorded.

 

[JREF2010]

LJ, that was a god perspective of the interrogation reasons and facts.

This Donninio translation is floating around recently.
The first thing I found typical of this case is how the PGP have used memory issues as lies for AK and RS, but here I captured a few points for Doninio who is answering aka "A".
But I don't hear anyone slandering her about being high on drugs or lying to cover memory issues.


Q: Do you remember if it was before 1:45?
A: Counsel, again, I don’t remember the time.
Q: But you said at a certain point she was crying, only when she had had the emotional shock…
A: Yes, yes.

Q: You don’t remember the exact time this emotional shock happened? Pardon me for insisting but I think it’s important.
A: But if I keep on saying I don’t remember, I can’t…

Its a subject of this behavioral slander I find irritating, because any of us forget.
Also the fact a lot of posters are older they have forgotten or have no idea how much 20yr olds do in a typical day. 60 to 100 texts and messages and cell calls and chat time is nothing to these kids, so remembering precise time the ate a meal, or read a book, or walked to a store, is ridiculous....but its used often in this persecution.

 

[Strozzi]

It's always amazing how one person's poor skills and approach can effect so much more.

I don't know much about DNA and the crime scene, but I understand tools and machines that measure nano, pico sized samples. The tools are only as good as the person running them. Controls help with the credibility. Crini is stating the controls were submitted now, as I understood some post.
This control sample issue was such a hot topic it's amazing they could have been submitted without any notice.

Or is this another one of those toss the false info out there, as the prosecution tends to do, and then only if caught it becomes a mistake (intentional mistake, or not, we'll never know). Like the blood testing on the knife, Stefonani said wasn't done, then it was found out it was done. There was another issue Stefonani said the sample size was larger than it was to the judge, but it was found out later she was "mistaken" about that too.

Can a person be mistaken repeatedly and be credible at all?
And when does Stefonani become another Rudy, labeled a liar and of no use to the trial?

It's a paradigm shift, when someone like Stefonani is studied. She brings a tainted view of DNA and Labs into question, a piece of proof that DNA Labs can provide false information......... or does she get away with only "mistaken" information from the witness stand.

When the key scientific police scientist processing and analyzing evidence says such "mistakes" under oath in court in a criminal trial in which the prosecutor is demanding 25 or 30 years in prison, it is not a mistake. It is a police scientist "lie".

 

[Briars]

Do you remember the part in Donnino's "detailed testimony under oath" where she explicitly recounts going far beyond her official role as an interpreter who has no credentials for enforcing the law? Do you remember the part where Donnino recounts "helping" Knox "remember" the traumatic events of Meredith's murder at Lumumba's hand? Do you remember how Donnino testified under oath that she told Knox a story about how she (Donnino) had broken her ankle badly once, and that the trauma of the event has caused her to "forget all memory" of the accident?

Do you think Donnino was lying or giving an accurate version of her role in Knox's interrogation in this "detailed testimony under oath"? If you think she was lying, why do you think that (and what would make you believe anything else she testified to)? If you think she was telling the truth, what do you think it says about a) her role in the interrogation, and b) the likelihood that Knox was being "helped" to "remember" being in the cottage while Lumumba killed Meredith?

Thanks in advance

Your point might actually carry weight if Donnino had suggested the trauma of the event had caused Amanda to forget details of being there BEFORE she named Lumumba.. She had already blurted out it was Patrick after learning RS had just withdrawn her alibi. She had already admitted meeting him in the piazza and returning to the cottage .

 

[Poppy1016]

Your point might actually carry weight if Donnino had suggested the trauma of the event had caused Amanda to forget details of being there BEFORE she named Lumumba.. She had already blurted out it was Patrick after learning RS had just withdrawn her alibi. She had already admitted meeting him in the piazza and returning to the cottage .

You sir have lost all credibility with me by your refusal to acknowledge and answer my questions.

 

[Grinder]

The problem is that the PGP want it both ways. They want to believe Toto, but only selectively believe him. But it shouldn't work that way. Either Toto's lying, and therefore Amanda and Raffaele are innocent or he's not lying and Amanda and Raffaele are innocent. It's really that simple.

I don't think he is lying. I think over the months being asked by the cub reporter about what he might have seen he in his heroin fog bagan to "remember" things. I doubt he ever actually saw anything like what he testified to but believed it, that's why he was so convincing to the court.

I gathered that, and others beat me to it anyway. I was pursuing a different line of argument regarding how I evaluate the reliability of witnesses. Even if you give him the benefit of the doubt for several factors that would disqualify him in the eyes of many, it doesn't even sound like he's talking about the right day!

See above.

I'm not sure I understand, Curatolo himself said he didn't leave to go sleep on his comfy park bench until ten minutes after the last bus left:

The testimony I've pasted here clearly says that he saw them when he left just before midnight, but that just doesn't work for the prosecution. Massei reasoned that since the buses normally leave by 11 that he left earlier than he recalled and set the time just after 11. But there were no buses so if one wants to believe his testimony then we should go back to his just before midnight.

I would suggest that defense needs to challenge his entire testimony and have it disregarded. But they should also say that if his obviously dubious testimony is to believed at all then the times he gave must be respected and the court can't adjust them to fit what they need for their scenario.

It has been established that the disco buses weren't running so any assumption based on their schedule must be disallowed. If the court wishes to believe that he saw them, then they must have them in the plaza from 9:30 to just before midnight.

Then review all the reasons his testimony doesn't pass muster but show his testimony gives them an alibi if believed.

 

[Grinder]

I had started to post then thought why bother and didn't realize the partial comment had been sent. Dave my only point that you failed to understand was in the recording Sollecito's call starts of by saying someone broke in the a window and left mess and there is a closed door. The dispatcher then writes down the location and name of a resident , Knox, and cell phone number. Then the dispatcher returns to Sollecito's reason for calling the police or what he assumes.So he says ,someone broke the window, entered and there was a theft. A statement or question in response to the call. RS IMMEDIATELY says,"no there was no theft". So just to be as clear as I possibly can be the no theft remark by Sollecito was not given after any remark about the intruder being cut nor was the dispatcher impatient as he claims in his book.The lie or dishonesty was how RS rewrote the timing when he said there was no theft. It was at the beginning PRIOR, well before , the dispatcher casually said so the intruder cut himself of the glass. The passage in the book is dishonest because RS is trying to say it was the cop's fault by being impatient and fixating on the intruder being cut that made him say there was no theft. Creative writing because he knows the no theft remark was a big mistake. Dave I used caps not to be rude but to make sure those two words show where Honor Bound is not accurate and foolishly tries to place blame. The calls are recorded and transcribed so there is no excuse not to see at what point he says there is no theft and what led to that.

Fair enough but still that doesn't point to guil; suspicion yes, guilt no.

Briars, how was the dispatcher sure that there was a theft BEFORE Raffaele mentioned anything about thefts or stuff missing? Did the dispatcher have inside information? If so, where did he get it?

Most likely a huge percentage of break in calls involve theft.

 

[toto]

Your point might actually carry weight if Donnino had suggested the trauma of the event had caused Amanda to forget details of being there BEFORE she named Lumumba.. She had already blurted out it was Patrick after learning RS had just withdrawn her alibi. She had already admitted meeting him in the piazza and returning to the cottage .

Well, according to Knox, (p114 "Waiting to be Heard") Napoleoni took her cell phone and scrolled through the history and said, after Amanda said she didn't remember texting anyone: "You need to stop lying. You texted Patrick. Who's Patrick?" Napoleoni then continues a line of questioning on Patrick. There is later confusion about the line "See you later" which, as all fluent English speakers know does not necessarily mean seeing ever again, or just some indefinite time in the future, such as, in this instance, "next time I come to work". So really it is clear that, while probably not suspecting Patrick Lumbaba in the first place, because they suspected Amanda, they therefore started to suspect him as well, and pushed that point.

 

[Briars]

Briars, how was the dispatcher sure that there was a theft BEFORE Raffaele mentioned anything about thefts or stuff missing? Did the dispatcher have inside information? If so, where did he get it?


ETA: You say "However it remained under the mat in the sealed room for the 47 days." Yet earlier you said:


Are you now saying that Mach was lying?

The dispatcher was not sure of theft but Sollecito started the call to police saying someone has broken a window entered and made a big mess.....So following that intro after taking down the address he resumes and says so someone broke in and there was a theft a statement of what he understood the caller to be calling about. RS no no theft.Later after RS told him no there was no theft he says of the blood found in the bathroom so this intruder cut himself on the glass? Again a question type of statement which makes sense from what the caller has said. No answer background cosa fai? Then hangup. There is no reason for an innocent person to be defensive about reporting a breakin and try to change the reality of the 112 call.

 

[acbytesla]

I don't think he is lying. I think over the months being asked by the cub reporter about what he might have seen he in his heroin fog bagan to "remember" things. I doubt he ever actually saw anything like what he testified to but believed it, that's why he was so convincing to the court.

I'm not sure if Toto is deliberately lying either Grinder. I think that it is possible that Toto actually believes what he told the court. That he is simply mistaken, through time and a heroin addled memory. We'll never know. Curatolo's story doesn't pass the smell test. Mabye it's the result of the carrot and the stick of the Perugian authorities.

The one thing we do agree on about this case is that Toto is not credible.

 

[Antony]

Antony, are you aware that the investigator holding the bra clasp the longest, turning it over in her dirty-gloved hands, and then appearing to stroke the hook area of the bra clasp with her dirty-gloved finger is the lead forensic police scientist Dr. Stefanoni herself. Yes, that's her. The crack scientist who understands DNA and contamination. The one who collects evidence, smears evidence, stores it inappropriately, uses inadequate instrumentation that cannot handle LCN evidence to prepare and examine LCN evidence, and deliberately misinterprets data so as to be able to claim that it matches whoever she wants it to match - victim or defendant.

Actually, I was aware of that - but only through comments on the forum. It's staggering of course, because it reflects on her lack of objectivity and regard for proper handling, but it's not actually important as to whether or not the DNA tests have any validity - because the bra-clasp is totally compromised as evidence in any case.

More to the point is this: if it's correct that the investigator filmed scrubbing the bathroom walls and fittings with collection swabs is her, then I think that's even more damning of the lack of science in her approach.

 

[Grinder]

Your point might actually carry weight if Donnino had suggested the trauma of the event had caused Amanda to forget details of being there BEFORE she named Lumumba.. She had already blurted out it was Patrick after learning RS had just withdrawn her alibi. She had already admitted meeting him in the piazza and returning to the cottage .

How do we know this?

I think I've asked you before but it is crucial to understand what the chief meant when he said that they questioned her until she buckled and told them what was correct.

Forget the buckled and the implied pressure needed to make someone buckle, just explain what they would have had to know to know what she signed was correct. It couldn't just be that she screamed or had had sex which was already in press thanks to the tight lipped PLE.

The PLE would have checked her cell records by that night and would have seen the text to PL. They would have known she was in contact with PL.

What exactly was Donnino trying to help her remember? I mean she didn't really remember anything besides PL.

 

[Briars]

Well, according to Knox, (p114 "Waiting to be Heard") Napoleoni took her cell phone and scrolled through the history and said, after Amanda said she didn't remember texting anyone: "You need to stop lying. You texted Patrick. Who's Patrick?" Napoleoni then continues a line of questioning on Patrick. There is later confusion about the line "See you later" which, as all fluent English speakers know does not necessarily mean seeing ever again, or just some indefinite time in the future, such as, in this instance, "next time I come to work". So really it is clear that, while probably not suspecting Patrick Lumbaba in the first place, because they suspected Amanda, they therefore started to suspect him as well, and pushed that point.

Her phone and calls became very interesting after RS said she went out. Police would then look at her last calls or texts. This was prior to any personal story from Donnino

 

[Briars]

I'll take suspicious point

 

[acbytesla]

The dispatcher was not sure of theft but Sollecito started the call to police saying someone has broken a window entered and made a big mess.....So following that intro after taking down the address he resumes and says so someone broke in and there was a theft a statement of what he understood the caller to be calling about. RS no no theft.Later after RS told him no there was no theft he says of the blood found in the bathroom so this intruder cut himself on the glass? Again a question type of statement which makes sense from what the caller has said. No answer background cosa fai? Then hangup. There is no reason for an innocent person to be defensive about reporting a breakin and try to change the reality of the 112 call.

I don't get you Briars. You have no idea if Raffaele is feeling guilty or just impatient. You clearly have never had to deal with the public. People get short with each other, people get defensive, they misread each other. They get impatient. Reading "guilt" or innocence into these statements is truly ridiculous.

I've spent a lifetime in customer service and sales. I think I'm very good at reading people on the phone. That said, I was wrong a lot. I know what I don't know..and foremost among them is what is going through other people's minds. How can you be so arrogant to think you know what was going through Raffaele's mind? Are you the British version of the Amazing Kreskin?

 

[Briars]

How do we know this?

I think I've asked you before but it is crucial to understand what the chief meant when he said that they questioned her until she buckled and told them what was correct.

Forget the buckled and the implied pressure needed to make someone buckle, just explain what they would have had to know to know what she signed was correct. It couldn't just be that she screamed or had had sex which was already in press thanks to the tight lipped PLE.

The PLE would have checked her cell records by that night and would have seen the text to PL. They would have known she was in contact with PL.

What exactly was Donnino trying to help her remember? I mean she didn't really remember anything besides PL.

I think they thought the phone records were suspicious and they called in Sollecito. He was the one who quickly said she went out. She learned he had bailed then she buckled also fairly quickly So the pair confirmed what they had started to suspect.

 

[Briars]

You sir have lost all credibility with me by your refusal to acknowledge and answer my questions.

Stop posing questions like a grade 7 homework essay .

 

[Antony]

Her phone and calls became very interesting after RS said she went out. Police would then look at her last calls or texts. This was prior to any personal story from Donnino

Yet the police continued to "interview her as a witness, and not a suspect". Got any way to rationalise this?

 

[Poppy1016]

Stop posing questions like a grade 7 homework essay .

You mean stop posting questions that you can't or don't want to answer. No problem.

 

[Grinder]

I think they thought the phone records were suspicious and they called in Sollecito. He was the one who quickly said she went out. She learned he had bailed then she buckled also fairly quickly So the pair confirmed what they had started to suspect.

They confirmed that she went out and met PL and knew more about the murder?

The police told her that he had retracted her alibi but we don't have the transcript of Raf's interrogation.

They had the phone records including PL's texts. I would think that by that time they would know she worked at Le Chic. In Italy cell phones were easy to identify which we know from Filomena's phone. They had to know who Patrick was and that he was in contact with Amanda.

The chief said they questioned her until she buckled and told them the truth, but it wasn't the truth, was it? So exactly what part of her statement was the truth they knew?