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

[andreajo]

That's an interesting question. Why did it take a dozen cops? That's how many were determined eligible to participate in the civil calunnia suit against her, though only eight did as I recall.

Who needs recordings to demonstrate the correctness of your behavior when you have the power of calunnia behind you?

 

[Nessie]

I hilited the word you are ignoring. Since Amanda walked into the police station of her own free will she was not a suspect at that time.

Non sequitur. Unless suspects are not allowed to attend police offices of their own free will in Italy. But what if they or the police do not know they are a suspect when they walked in and it only became apparent afterwards? What about people who know they are suspects and attend police offices voluntarily to help police with their enquiries? That happens in the UK. Is it not allowed elsewhere?

 

[anglolawyer]

The argument is long one in the appeal and is covered at the beginning. Attached Google translation pages 1-14. This is regards to the objection on the usability of statements per art 63.2

I think you can trash that document Rose as IIP has a high quality translation of it here. This is Amanda's appeal from Massei to Hellman. It refers, as the Hellman motivation does, to this decision of Cassazione

judgment
by the Court of Cassation, the first section, judgment no. 990/08 dated 01.04.2008

Second thoughts, don't trash it as it seems as though it is a translation of the complete appeal doc not a digested version. Now, if we could get hold of that one we would know on what grounds Mignini tried and failed to defend the conduct of the interrogations.

 

[RoseMontague]

I think you can trash that document Rose as IIP has a high quality translation of it here. This is Amanda's appeal from Massei to Hellman. It refers, as the Hellman motivation does, to this decision of Cassazione

judgment
by the Court of Cassation, the first section, judgment no. 990/08 dated 01.04.2008

Second thoughts, don't trash it as it seems as though it is a translation of the complete appeal doc not a digested version. Now, if we could get hold of that one we would know on what grounds Mignini tried and failed to defend the conduct of the interrogations.

Yes, those are just summaries in English. Send me a PM anybody that wants the full Google translation.

 

[anglolawyer]

Yes, those are just summaries in English. Send me a PM anybody that wants the full Google translation.

My post was ambiguous. Do you have the Cassazione decision I referred to? The one from 2008 on admissibility? I know Hans at IIP has tried to find it.

 

[Bill Williams]

The ink is barely dry on Nencini's wrongful conviction of Sollecito and Knox, and already some sort of review panel has ruled unanimously to investigate Nencini's post-conviction comments in the press.

http://www.rainews.it/dl/rainews/articoli/Meredith-Commissione-del-Csm-chiede-l-apertura-di-una-pratica-sul-giudice-Nencini-35617ebf-ab57-4db3-9abc-64b0ed43b34c.html

A very bad Google-translate:

In the morning, the magistrate had defended himself saying that he intended only to clarify the rumors in the Council Chamber. Nencini stated that it had accidentally met some journalists in the corridors of the Palace of Justice that would have reported of rumors and speculation over the duration of the Chamber of counsel. "I had a brief conversation with their intended, in my intentions, to clarify possible misunderstandings - has said the judge - Of this I take responsibility, reaffirming that I did not in any way intended to anticipate the reasons for the sentence. In particular, I have not expressed any opinion on the trial strategy of the defense of the accused.

In short Nencini admitted he committed the offence, but lacked intent.

 

[Diocletus]

The ink is barely dry on Nencini's wrongful conviction of Sollecito and Knox, and already some sort of review panel has ruled unanimously to investigate Nencini's post-conviction comments in the press.

http://www.rainews.it/dl/rainews/articoli/Meredith-Commissione-del-Csm-chiede-l-apertura-di-una-pratica-sul-giudice-Nencini-35617ebf-ab57-4db3-9abc-64b0ed43b34c.html

A very bad Google-translate:



In short Nencini admitted he committed the offence, but lacked intent.

Well, we know where this is going. Nowhere.

 

[Mary_H]

I hilited the word you are ignoring. Since Amanda walked into the police station of her own free will she was not a suspect at that time.

This has been straightened out, tsig. Machiavelli has divulged the following:

<snip>The charges for which Knox was informally "strongly suspected" were false declarations to investigators (art. 371) and favoreggiamento personale (covering up for a criminal person) (art. 378), and also possibly of an alteration of the murder scene.
<snip>
Mignini says exactly the same things that I am telling you. That she was not at all a suspect for tha charge of murder.
But everybody agrees that [Amanda] was "attenzionata" (put under attention) from minute one because she was not credible, and because she is was related to a staging, therefore assessed to be a probable false witness, covering up for the murderer.

It would be interesting to know whether the phones of any of the other "witnesses" were tapped, or just the phones of the witnesses-who-would-become-suspects. That information would help us separate the witnesses from the suspects.

Amanda may have walked into the police station of her own free will, but, as far as anyone has reported, she was not given a choice about whether she would be interrogated, nor was she informed she had the right to leave the Questura. Do you honestly believe she would have been allowed to leave if she had wanted to?

The Supreme Court settled it, anyway. They said the 5:45 statement could not be used because Amanda was not provided with a lawyer once she became a suspect. (When Amanda appeared at trial in 2009, two of the attorneys in the courtroom referred to Amanda's 5:45 interview with Mignini as the "second interrogation." Neither the judge nor Mignini objected to that characterization.)

Mach's right -- "everybody agrees" that Amanda was suspected from Day One. Attenzionata? "A rose by any other name....."

 

[Mary_H]

This annoying penchant for English reserve and understated reaction is what's wrong here.

In Canada they would eventually have had to call paramedics to deal with the burst blood vessel in the judge's eye. He/she would have gone beet-red with rage, and opposing counsel would need to be treated for eardrum damage.

This reminds me of Judge Begbie here in colonial days. He was called "The Hanging Judge", because he'd start his sessions in a converted saloon with, "bring in the guilty bastard." (Sort of like Nencici.)

But Begbie was a noted noose enthusiast because he once threatened to hang the jury..... literally. All of them. That's the way we do justice up in these mountains.

No understated note taking. The judges here also take care of their own courtroom security by using the butt of a .45 revolver as a gavel.

I had no idea Western Canada was so wild and untamed.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

on top of the cupboard

I'll say it again, this time let's see if you get it: Interrogations in the Questura are not taped.

vibio,

In Murder in Italy (pp. 122-127) Dempsey discusses the conversations (pl) that were recorded on 4 November at the Questura. Follain discusses it on pp. 119-120, even giving the location of the hidden microphone. I have previously cited Nadeau's book. Three strikes and you are out of anyone's ballgame.

 

[acbytesla]

The lie is that Mignini says budgetary constraints, but logic states it doesnt cost anything to record.

We know recording equipment was already bought and the actual recording , pressing a record button, has no cost.
Theres no cost in recording the audio or video.... and its a murder investigation, so they determine the budgetary issues only for a few hours.

Most cell phones will even record audio these days, for free. The Mignini ordered wire-tapping is by far more advanced recording equipment and time consuming, in addition to the fact they were recording Amanda and Raffaele in the Questura proves they had the equipment available in the Questura.
Again the cost of recording is not the issue, the issue is Mignini and the pack is lying.

So Mignini is lying on video, the CNN interview, about this topic of the interrogation recording. The ECHR will see this easily.

Mignini and all those officials who were there, they all choose to take part in the skullduggery....


I would feel confident any fair system would see this lie quickly, its child like lying, but with the ECHR Mignini and the "system" wont be able to bully people around

The excuses for not recording the interrogations just don't wash. On any level. The Questura is a modern police department, it would be at home in just about any small city in the US. They recorded Amanda while she was in the hallway awaiting interrogation. This was a murder investigation not a shoplifting charge. The room was wired for sound. Nobody believes the "budget" excuse not even Machiavelli, who says it just isn't done in Italy. Which is extremely hard to believe regardless of what he says. Video recordings of these sessions are very often the most compelling evidence in countless prosecutions.

I can't imagine "not recording" the sessions as they avoid exactly the circumstance we have here. A "he said/she said".

What amazes me is just how brain washed the Italian population is in regards to this kind of investigations. Never mind, that this is Amanda Knox and an American, if this is what Italians expect from their police departments, than they need to demand better and more accountable practices.

 

[Mary_H]

vibio,

In Murder in Italy (pp. 122-127) Dempsey discusses the conversations (pl) that were recorded on 4 November at the Questura. Follain discusses it on pp. 119-120, even giving the location of the hidden microphone. I have previously cited Nadeau's book. Three strikes and you are out of anyone's ballgame.

And don't bring a knife to a gunfight.

 

[Grinder]

And don't bring a knife to a gunfight.

or a Bronco to a football game!

 

[Caper]

Do people think the interviews were recorded and then destroyed?

 

[Planigale]

Keep right on knocking yourselves out over this, but interrogations in the questura are not taped. Even if phone conversations and prison conversations are.

Furthermore, in 2007, (just so you all know) only a handful of US jurisdictions required taped interrogations

But hey : please continue...

The question is was AK interviewed as a witness (witness interviews recorded) or interrogated as a suspect (not recorded). If the police failed to record then this meant this was an interrogation of a suspect. If she was interviewed as a witness then there was a recording.

Recordings of interrogations protect suspects they do not aid the police. Recordings of witness interviews aid the police. Interviews with witnesses require only the presence of the interviewing office (and translator) interrogations of suspects require at least two officers to be present.

I would be interested to obtain documentation of who was present when the other witnesses were interviewed, as opposed to who was present when RS or AK were interrogated.

 

[Caper]

Here is a reply I just read on a news article. What if any of this is true and what is lies?

Nothing that other people did change the fact that police found the rapist couple outside of the dormitory the morning after muder with cleaning equipment. Someone cleaned Merediths blood, and assuming it was Guede is naive, because where did he get the equipment to do the cleaning and I mean careful cleaning no just few wipes. Blood is not easy to clean. And where did he hid those equipment. Isn't it more obvious that Amanda Knox and Rafaele Sollecito made the cleaning in order to destroy evidence. There was an internet search made on Sollecitos computer for blood cleaning. You can always try to go around.. but it come around eventually. She is guilty, she is person who determinated Merediths fate.

 

[andreajo]

Here is a reply I just read on a news article. What if any of this is true and what is lies?

Nothing that other people did change the fact that police found the rapist couple outside of the dormitory the morning after muder with cleaning equipment. Someone cleaned Merediths blood, and assuming it was Guede is naive, because where did he get the equipment to do the cleaning and I mean careful cleaning no just few wipes. Blood is not easy to clean. And where did he hid those equipment. Isn't it more obvious that Amanda Knox and Rafaele Sollecito made the cleaning in order to destroy evidence. There was an internet search made on Sollecitos computer for blood cleaning. You can always try to go around.. but it come around eventually. She is guilty, she is person who determinated Merediths fate.

What if any of this is true and what is lies?

Rapist=lie
Couple=true
Outside the flat=true
With cleaning equipment=false
Someone cleaned Meredith's blood=mostly false (Rudy rinsed himself in the bathroom, but the purported AK RS selective blood DNA cleaning is false. There are no sweepy swipy blood cleaning marks revealed by luminol - just the opposite).
I don't know a thing about the blood cleaning search on RS computer.
She is guilty = false.

 

[Bill Williams]

Here is a reply I just read on a news article. What if any of this is true and what is lies?

Nothing that other people did change the fact that police found the rapist couple outside of the dormitory the morning after muder with cleaning equipment. Someone cleaned Merediths blood, and assuming it was Guede is naive, because where did he get the equipment to do the cleaning and I mean careful cleaning no just few wipes. Blood is not easy to clean. And where did he hid those equipment. Isn't it more obvious that Amanda Knox and Rafaele Sollecito made the cleaning in order to destroy evidence. There was an internet search made on Sollecitos computer for blood cleaning. You can always try to go around.. but it come around eventually. She is guilty, she is person who determinated Merediths fate.

Taking this one at a time:

1: "police found the rapist couple"

Only Rudy Guede's forensic presence was found in the room, and his DNA presence was found in the victim.

The police found them, because "the couple" summoned the police and had been raising the alarm about the strange appearance of the cottage all morning.​

2: "with cleaning equipment."

A mop and pail that belonged at the cottage, which when tested showed no sign of being used in a murder clean-up.​

3: "Someone cleaned Merediths blood, and assuming it was Guede is naive, because where did he get the equipment to do the cleaning and I mean careful cleaning no just few wipes"

Rudy admitted to going into the bathroom to get towels and those towels were found in Meredith's besfroom soaked in her blood.

There was no indication of "careful cleaning", no smell of bleach, and besides it is more than a "cvareful cleaning" alleged here, it must have been one able to distinguish individual DNA patterns. How does one do that with a mop? Perhaps an electron microscope. Not even Judge Massei posited a cleaning in the murder room.​

4: Blood is not easy to clean.

True. Why then is there no forensic traces of Meredith on either Amanda or Raffaele? The police had access to the clothes both wore on the evening of Nov 1, Knox's lay on her bed in her bedroom untouched by investigators for weeks!

And when Blood IS successfully cleaned, the DNA associated with it is long gone... it is easier to clean. Why then if someone rests their case on a cleaning up of blood, do they refer to DNA remaining?​

5: And where did he hid those equipment.

Presuming this is Rudy they are talking about, he did not. He left the tools of the only clean discernible at the cottage in Meredith's room - namely, the towels.​

6: Isn't it more obvious that Amanda Knox and Rafaele Sollecito made the cleaning in order to destroy evidence.

No. It is impossible to destroy two of three DNA signatures, without some microscopic help, or sophisticated DNA equipment.​

7: There was an internet search made on Sollecitos computer for blood cleaning.

In four trials, this factoid has never been raised. Did this poster just make this up?​

 

[Machiavelli]

Is vibio really suggesting that Italy is so backward that its police did not have recording equipment in 2007? He is! LOL.

As I already said, police don't record summary information of informants as a praxis, for several reasons, most important for obvious financial reasons. Due to beaurocracy rules and possibility of requests, that would likely force the state to transcript many of them.

 

[andreajo]

Rapist=lie
Couple=true
Outside the flat=true
With cleaning equipment=false
Someone cleaned Meredith's blood=mostly false (Rudy rinsed himself in the bathroom, but the purported AK RS selective blood DNA cleaning is false. There are no sweepy swipy blood cleaning marks revealed by luminol - just the opposite).
I don't know a thing about the blood cleaning search on RS computer.
She is guilty = false.

Whoops, according to Bill who knows way more, yes to the cleaning stuff. My bad.