Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[lonepinealex]

CoulsdonUK,

I think that either the 2009 verdict or the 2014 verdict might have gone differently if the judge were not part of the decision itself. In other words, if there were a jury that was entirely made up of individuals without any connection to law enforcement.

How would they find an impartial jury after all that press coverage? It would be impossible to sequester them adequately.

 

[Grinder]

What we're talking about is your assertion that AK was asked during her many interviews with the police about the details of her own activities on the night of Nov 1. You've also asserted that she may have been drinking, that she didn't want to talk about having sex, and that she didn't want to talk about smoking pot. I agree that she'd prefer not to discuss pot, given that it's illegal. No idea why you think she would try to hide that she and RS had sex, given that she told them she'd spent the night there. Alcohol seems to be your own invention.

I quoted from Preston's description of his Mignini interrogation because it matches so closely the way AK described the shift in how the police treated her and the changing nature of the questions they asked her on the night of Nov 5 as compared to the days just before. Polite and interested one minute, threatening and accusatory the next.

I don't know what RS meant by "pack of lies." My guess is that it was sarcasm, the kind a teenager would use when an authority figure had utterly failed to push him into saying what the authority figure wanted to hear. "Okay, you're right, have it your way, everything I just said is BS, happy now?" That sort of thing.

Again, it never dawned on him that they were seriously thinking of him as a murder suspect. He was just a privileged guy showing his annoyance at having to deal with people he thought had no right to talk to him.

You haven't read Amanda's own account or you don't remember it. She said the questioning became progressively harsher from the police as time went by.

I didn't assert she was definitely drinking but certainly it was possible and couldn't be detected and could have affected memory, but really just an aside anyway. Perhaps at twenty years old with only one or two one-night stands in her history she may not have wanted to be explicit about having sex.

Are you suggesting that Raf's behavior was one that could attract the attention of the PLE and when added to the oddness the saw in Amanda caused them to suspect the kids?

 

[anglolawyer]

You haven't read Amanda's own account or you don't remember it. She said the questioning became progressively harsher from the police as time went by.

I didn't assert she was definitely drinking but certainly it was possible and couldn't be detected and could have affected memory, but really just an aside anyway. Perhaps at twenty years old with only one or two one-night stands in her history she may not have wanted to be explicit about having sex.

Are you suggesting that Raf's behavior was one that could attract the attention of the PLE and when added to the oddness the saw in Amanda caused them to suspect the kids?

So what? What do you think that means? The detailed questioning, which may or may not have become harsher, will have been about the events of the morning and middle of 02 Nov as to which there was plenty to talk about. You need to come up with some evidence if you want to claim that any detailed questioning (harsh or not) concerning the evening of 01 Nov took place before the night of 05-06.

 

[Grinder]

So what? What do you think that means? The detailed questioning, which may or may not have become harsher, will have been about the events of the morning and middle of 02 Nov as to which there was plenty to talk about. You need to come up with some evidence if you want to claim that any detailed questioning (harsh or not) concerning the evening of 01 Nov took place before the night of 05-06.

I was specifically responding to:

I quoted from Preston's description of his Mignini interrogation because it matches so closely the way AK described the shift in how the police treated her and the changing nature of the questions they asked her on the night of Nov 5 as compared to the days just before. Polite and interested one minute, threatening and accusatory the next.
It's in her book that the police became harsh and she named Ficarra before the 5th as being so.

ETA - I wonder why the interrogation summaries or transcripts or whatever was made and Mignini referred to haven't been released including Raf's night of the 5th interrogation notes?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

changes in latitudes, changes in attitudes

How would they find an impartial jury after all that press coverage? It would be impossible to sequester them adequately.

lonepinealex,

A change of venue might have helped.

 

[Dan O.]

Perhaps at twenty years old with only one or two one-night stands in her history she may not have wanted to be explicit about having sex.

Perhaps you cannot remember how many sex partners you have had but that information is explicitly documented in this case so you shouldn't be making such a mistake.

 

[anglolawyer]

I was specifically responding to:

I quoted from Preston's description of his Mignini interrogation because it matches so closely the way AK described the shift in how the police treated her and the changing nature of the questions they asked her on the night of Nov 5 as compared to the days just before. Polite and interested one minute, threatening and accusatory the next.
It's in her book that the police became harsh and she named Ficarra before the 5th as being so.

ETA - I wonder why the interrogation summaries or transcripts or whatever was made and Mignini referred to haven't been released including Raf's night of the 5th interrogation notes?

The subject was not harsh or not but whether they were asked in any detail about their own activity the night of the 1st so as to render their inability to recall it later implausible. I mean, being asked about something you would not otherwise think about, fixes it in your mind, right? So, assuming Raffaele genuinely forgot which evening came before the morning of the murder, it's unlikely he had his mind focused on it. As she will have told him what the police were asking her about it's also likely her mind was not focused on the over-flowing sink, what time they had dinner or sex etc.

 

[Grinder]

Perhaps you cannot remember how many sex partners you have had but that information is explicitly documented in this case so you shouldn't be making such a mistake.

I wasn't talking about total number of partners.

Tell you what Dan O. why not just supply the info. IIRC she stated that the guy she met on the train was "a game changer" and she also had a one night stand with the guy from Rome. The point was that she wasn't very experienced and as she described herself naive, so it makes sense that she could be a little embarrassed and didn't mention what would seem a very unimportant detail.

Nice maps.

 

[Grinder]

The subject was not harsh or not but whether they were asked in any detail about their own activity the night of the 1st so as to render their inability to recall it later implausible. I mean, being asked about something you would not otherwise think about, fixes it in your mind, right? So, assuming Raffaele genuinely forgot which evening came before the morning of the murder, it's unlikely he had his mind focused on it. As she will have told him what the police were asking her about it's also likely her mind was not focused on the over-flowing sink, what time they had dinner or sex etc.

No. Go back and read the thread.

She was asked about the day before by the police in the first session. She provides very little detail of how 50 hours of interviews went.

ETA may have been the shifting point:

That's pretty much how Amanda described her own interrogation on the night of Nov 5. But it's not how she was treated in the days before that.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

CoulsdonUK,
I think that either the 2009 verdict or the 2014 verdict might have gone differently if the judge were not part of the decision itself. In other words, if there were a jury that was entirely made up of individuals without any connection to law enforcement.

Good point.

How would they find an impartial jury after all that press coverage? It would be impossible to sequester them adequately.

Do you have some information relating to how lay jurists voted 2009 and 2014?
Press coverage, are you referring to the English speaking based press coverage?

 

[lonepinealex]

Do you have some information relating to how lay jurists voted 2009 and 2014?
Press coverage, are you referring to the English speaking based press coverage?

No, I'm referring to how the police continually leaked information and pictures to the press throughout the investigation, way before the trial. As far as I know there are no rules about sequestering lay judges in Italy, so there is every incentive for the various participants to use the press to influence the outcome of trials.

 

[anglolawyer]

No. Go back and read the thread.

She was asked about the day before by the police in the first session. She provides very little detail of how 50 hours of interviews went.

ETA may have been the shifting point:

That's pretty much how Amanda described her own interrogation on the night of Nov 5. But it's not how she was treated in the days before that.

Neither one of us knows what she was asked about the evening of the murder. The fact she mentions it in her email tells us nothing about the extent of that part of the questioning. Whether the police suspected her or not, they would not have asked in any detail about what they did at that tine because: if thought to be innocent it would gave been irrelevant while if not, doing so would have aroused suspicion.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

We can all drink too much, then get into a car and drive

Do you have some information relating to how lay jurists voted 2009 and 2014?
Press coverage, are you referring to the English speaking based press coverage?

Yes I do; that is one of the perks in being a bosun's mate on the PR supertanker. I just can't discuss it.

link to 2009 post-verdict article. "It was hard to envision Knox doing this," she said. "But it is possible. … We can all drink too much, then get in a car and drive." In my opinion this member of the jury doesn't sound convinced BARD.

"Asked if the final verdict was unanimous after 12 hours of deliberations, Nencini hedged, saying it was a "shared" decision." link. My point is not what the vote tally was; it is what the vote tally would have been in the absence of Massei, who couldn't reason his way out of a paper bag, or Nencini, who never met an order he did not wish to obey.

Daily Mail. He said: ‘The jurors returned home every day and were bombarded with information. When we met they would say, “Justice, but on TV they say that it happened in another way. What happened really?”.’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...vealing-interviews-verdict.html#ixzz3D1M0MP9m

I infer that the judge guided the lay jurors to a decision. IMO the SCC was clear as crystal that they expected a conviction. The conclusion of their motivations report doesn't tolerate any other interpretation IMO.

 

[Dan O.]

I wasn't talking about total number of partners.

Tell you what Dan O. why not just supply the info. IIRC she stated that the guy she met on the train was "a game changer" and she also had a one night stand with the guy from Rome. The point was that she wasn't very experienced and as she described herself naive, so it makes sense that she could be a little embarrassed and didn't mention what would seem a very unimportant detail.

Nice recovery attempt. But even excluding all the other relationships you are still wrong. It on page 1193 of the 10,000 page case file. Haven't you read that far? There were 3 one night stands not one or two as you claim.

 

[Grinder]

Neither one of us knows what she was asked about the evening of the murder. The fact she mentions it in her email tells us nothing about the extent of that part of the questioning. Whether the police suspected her or not, they would not have asked in any detail about what they did at that tine because: if thought to be innocent it would gave been irrelevant while if not, doing so would have aroused suspicion.

I believe that if the interrogation/interview sessions were transcribed, as Mignini indicated they were, and they showed little or no "contrasting" statements or inability to remember significant things, the defense would have released them.

We don't know anything on the subject of what she said or how often they asked about the evening except they asked about the evening/night the first session. It seems normal for the police to start from the beginning when they go over the crime for 50 hours. When did you see her last? Did she say anything about the night before at the Halloween party? Etc. Etc. Then what did you do? Did you talk to her later by phone? Etc. etc.

I hope Charlie has these interviews and gets them out. It would be wonderful to see these interviews proving she didn't have trouble remembering basic facts.

So far I haven't seen Amanda in her book addressing "the lies" which have been such a large part of the case. My first indication something was wrong with the case was de Felice saying she told us stuff that was incorrect until she buckled...

Certainly in the soft circumstantial arena "all the lies" was a major component.

 

[Grinder]

Nice recovery attempt. But even excluding all the other relationships you are still wrong. It on page 1193 of the 10,000 page case file. Haven't you read that far? There were 3 one night stands not one or two as you claim.

Well there you have it. Since she had 3, she would certainly not have any hesitation to tell the police about having sex.

 

[Desert Fox]

CoulsdonUK,

I think that either the 2009 verdict or the 2014 verdict might have gone differently if the judge were not part of the decision itself. In other words, if there were a jury that was entirely made up of individuals without any connection to law enforcement.

The time I was a juror, have the jury had some ties to law enforcement. Believe one was a clerk for the magistrate, I am in maritime enforcement, and I believe a couple others has some sort of loose ties.

 

[moije2]

I believe that if the interrogation/interview sessions were transcribed, as Mignini indicated they were, and they showed little or no "contrasting" statements or inability to remember significant things, the defense would have released them.

We don't know anything on the subject of what she said or how often they asked about the evening except they asked about the evening/night the first session.
It seems normal for the police to start from the beginning when they go over the crime for 50 hours. When did you see her last? Did she say anything about the night before at the Halloween party? Etc. Etc. Then what did you do? Did you talk to her later by phone? Etc. etc.

I hope Charlie has these interviews and gets them out. It would be wonderful to see these interviews proving she didn't have trouble remembering basic facts.

So far I haven't seen Amanda in her book addressing "the lies" which have been such a large part of the case. My first indication something was wrong with the case was de Felice saying she told us stuff that was incorrect until she buckled...

Certainly in the soft circumstantial arena "all the lies" was a major component.

Highlite #1: Really? And IF they exist, and IF such transcripts expose "contrasting" statements, do you think the Prosecution would not have released them?

Highlite #2: That appears correct. We don't know anything.

Highlite #3: when they last spoke and so on would indeed be normal questioning. But there is nothing except speculation to think that the PLE was grinding her about whether she ate at 9:15 or 8:35 or some such details in the early days of her questioning. Her "contrasting" statements clearly applies as a descriptive to her confusion. Perhaps we should be putting "confusion" in quotes because after all, she did state that.

 

[Grinder]

Highlite #1: Really? And IF they exist, and IF such transcripts expose "contrasting" statements, do you think the Prosecution would not have released them?

Fair enough but not as important to them.

Highlite #2: That appears correct. We don't know anything.

except that they ask her about the evening/night at the very first and interviewed for hours and hours after that before the 5th

Highlite #3: when they last spoke and so on would indeed be normal questioning. But there is nothing except speculation to think that the PLE was grinding her about whether she ate at 9:15 or 8:35 or some such details in the early days of her questioning. Her "contrasting" statements clearly applies as a descriptive to her confusion. Perhaps we should be putting "confusion" in quotes because after all, she did state that.

Ha Ha

Yes being confused wasn't an issue for the PLE.

Clearly she wasn't asked about the evening again and the contrasting statements were about Vaseline and vibrators.

 

[anglolawyer]

I believe that if the interrogation/interview sessions were transcribed, as Mignini indicated they were, and they showed little or no "contrasting" statements or inability to remember significant things, the defense would have released them.

I bet a yacht the defence teams don't have them to release.

We don't know anything on the subject of what she said or how often they asked about the evening except they asked about the evening/night the first session. It seems normal for the police to start from the beginning when they go over the crime for 50 hours. When did you see her last? Did she say anything about the night before at the Halloween party? Etc. Etc. Then what did you do? Did you talk to her later by phone? Etc. etc.

None of your example questions concern their activities on the evening and night of 01-02 Nov.

I hope Charlie has these interviews and gets them out. It would be wonderful to see these interviews proving she didn't have trouble remembering basic facts.

Well you'll be down two yachts if/when he tells us he has no such thing.

So far I haven't seen Amanda in her book addressing "the lies" which have been such a large part of the case. My first indication something was wrong with the case was de Felice saying she told us stuff that was incorrect until she buckled...

Certainly in the soft circumstantial arena "all the lies" was a major component.

Exactly which lies do you refer to here? Give a couple of examples if setting them all out would be a chore.