Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[platonov]

You:



That according to the detective and interpreter in the room had nothing to do with it. You believe that's the reason she named Lumumba even though the cops said she wasn't told and that's not their version of events at all.

What they've written in their books really doesn't matter. It's about what people said in the courtroom .I don't even need to know Amanda's version to know the naming of Lumumba was connected to the discovery of the missing text and the "see you later" reply because that's what the cops said. (And it also lines up with what she said)





The police said everything was normal. She was giving them the names of people Meredith knew for them to check out. At no point was she trying to hint it was Lumumba, Guede or anyone else.




If you believe Amanda when she said she was told about Raffaele then that means Zugarini and Donnino are lying. Why are they lying and what else are they lying about?

If you believe the cops then why would she have this emotional break down and tell them it was Lumumba when she'd already told them about him earlier? Why would she place herself at the scene when she was seen by Popovic and was watching a movie somewhere else?

The books don’t count. Don't let Bill hear you say that.
Why did you bring up the quote from AK’s book if that’s the case?

But OK. Let’s take that as a given for the moment.
Well in that case there is no discrepancy.
The cops testified (you say) that AK falsely accused PL without being told by them that RS had withdrawn her alibi.
She never contradicted this on the stand. See my quote below.

There is no point going over the events immediately prior to the actual accusation again. That’s not news to anyone. Well it’s not news to you or I or anyone who is vaguely familiar with the case – it might be news to some in Cartwheel world.

One not so minor point. I am familiar with much of AK’s testimony. While she addresses the betrayal by RS [ June 2009 in response to Maresca IIRC] she doesn’t actually connect this with her false accusation. Do you have a cite for this.
Platonov has the (annoying apparently ) habit of being right in these matters but perhaps I have overlooked something

I take it you accept this.
So Knox lied in her book but it doesn’t make any difference. And RS is being silent/vague on the matter in his book but that doesn’t make any difference.
All we can say is that AK falsely accused PL AND RS withdrew her alibi on the same night.

That is probably news to some posters here so that’s something.


ETA Here’s something that struck me. If we accept that the cops didn’t tell AK about the ‘betrayal’ prior to the 1.45 statement perhaps she heard about it prior to the 5.45 SD and that’s why she added RS’s name into the mix. What do you think?

 

[Magister]

delete

 

[platonov]

I am wondering if you have an opinion on why no prosecutor, no judge, nor even Amanda Knox herself knows anything about Raffaele turning on her. That would seem to be an important point to make in a motivations' report, or in a prosecutor's closing. No book that has been written - by Knox, Sollecito, Dempsey, Follain or anyone claims that Raffaele has turned on Knox.

I do.
See my reference to the Maresca/Knox interaction when she was on the stand.
Note that MichaelB doesn’t contradict platonov on this issue.
You might want to take a leaf out of his book, if you will pardon the pun, w.r.t this matter

 

[carbonjam72]

Cat logic

Republic - November 14, 2007 Page 17 Section: CHRONICLE (Google translation)
PERUGIA - Two keys connected with a ring. For the investigators have a 'further proof of the guilt of Amanda Knox, accused with Raffaele Sollecito and Patrick Lumumba' s murder of Meredith Kercher. Are key 'apartment below the one where the young Englishman was killed in the evening between the' one and two November. On that ground, with three other boys, lives Giacomo Silenzi, Meredith's boyfriend, on 3 November he had told police: "Before leaving for Porto San Giorgio I gave the keys to my house asking Meredith to disinfect one of my two cats that had injured her ear. "​

So the claim is that the cat with the bleeding ear rubbed against the light switch, right?

The simple fact that multiple cats lived there, may have shed hair, nibbled pot plants, etc, doesn't mean they were there at the time of the murder. (and this doesn't just go for cats, same goes for Amanda and Raf)

Ofcourse, Numbers is a bit more to the point. The location of 'blood' on the light switch, the fact that there are human DNA profiles downstairs that are suppressed, the fact that there is no evidence of a species specific test having been performed - so there's no actual basis for asserting its cat blood, and the disorder of the apartment.

I would like to read the Downstairs Boys' testimony to see if they left the place like that in such disorder, the extensiveness of the "cat's injuries", and if any clothes were missing. Also, wasn't Bonassi's (bloody bed spread? - sorry if I'm getting this wrong) door locked?

And, I want to see Stef's suppressed DNA data (or actually, I want Diocletus or Chris or Planingale or others who would know what they're looking at to see it).

There's a reason Cats rule the internet. They are infinitely intriguing to humans. But with no species specific test to prove the blood came from cats, in all fairness, that claim should cease, until its supported in some way.

"My cat hurt its ear, therefore all this blood all over this messed up downstairs apartment must be blood from my cat" - is not an argument.

 

[Kauffer]

The books don’t count. Don't let Bill hear you say that.
Why did you bring up the quote from AK’s book if that’s the case?

But OK. Let’s take that as a given for the moment.
Well in that case there is no discrepancy.
The cops testified (you say) that AK falsely accused PL without being told by them that RS had withdrawn her alibi.
She never contradicted this on the stand. See my quote below.

There is no point going over the events immediately prior to the actual accusation again. That’s not news to anyone. Well it’s not news to you or I or anyone who is vaguely familiar with the case – it might be news to some in Cartwheel world.






I take it you accept this.
So Knox lied in her book but it doesn’t make any difference. And RS is being silent/vague on the matter in his book but that doesn’t make any difference.
All we can say is that AK falsely accused PL AND RS withdrew her alibi on the same night.

That is probably news to some posters here so that’s something.


ETA Here’s something that struck me. If we accept that the cops didn’t tell AK about the ‘betrayal’ prior to the 1.45 statement perhaps she heard about it prior to the 5.45 SD and that’s why she added RS’s name into the mix. What do you think?

The interrogations were illegal - a breach of the procedural rights of both Mr Sollecito and Ms Knox. Do you understand this? Why do you dwell on this question of the alibi ad nauseum - something that was never an issue at trial, with all three judges confirming that Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito both alibi each other?

And finally, will you once and for all confirm whether it is your belief that Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito were together during the night of the murder or whether you believe that Mr Sollecito was home and Ms Knox out? Is Mr Sollecito innocent?

 

[Bill Williams]

The interrogations were illegal - a breach of the procedural rights of both Mr Sollecito and Ms Knox. Do you understand this? Why do you dwell on this question of the alibi ad nauseum - something that was never an issue at trial, with all three judges confirming that Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito both alibi each other?

And finally, will you once and for all confirm whether it is your belief that Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito were together during the night of the murder or whether you believe that Mr Sollecito was home and Ms Knox out? Is Mr Sollecito innocent?

Platonov will not respond to this. And if not, that proves his/her intentions here are trollish, rather than to advance a case.

 

[Bill Williams]

I do.
See my reference to the Maresca/Knox interaction when she was on the stand.
Note that MichaelB doesn’t contradict platonov on this issue.
You might want to take a leaf out of his book, if you will pardon the pun, w.r.t this matter

Ok, this one was my fault for not being 100% clear.

As mentioned by others, you are stuck on the time between 10:30 pm Nov 5th to Nov 6 5:45 am, 2007.

What I was not clear in stating is that all information that Knox and Sollecito received about what the other was saying was mediated by police, who held them in separate rooms. If you want to know what Sollecito actually said, for instance, the ONLY source of information about that is his book, Honor Bound. As demonstrated by others upthread, the PLE cannot agree on a timeline of who knew what and when.

Sollecito in his book, acknowledges that the effect of what he signed, in his words, cuts Amanda loose. However, he's clear in the book that he at the time did not understand this fully, much less than that they were being charged with Meredith's murder. He says he allowed himself to be bullied - not to withdraw an alibi - but to agree to an ambiguous account which could be used against her.

Since that night Sollecito has been clear. He is Amanda's alibi.

You see, in that approximately 7 1/4 hour period, the PLE were going for the right amount of ambiguity - not searching for truth. Both AK and RS, illegally interrogated in the middle of the night, confess to one thing only - contributing to the ambiguity.

Fast forward to the platonov-meme: that starting with the "press conference", Raffaele has taken his separation strategy into the realm of now, after all these years of sticking with the alibi story, he is all of a sudden cutting Amanda loose.

Start with this - judicially this makes no sense anyway. All three 1st/2nd grade trials, not only did Raffaele enter absolutely no evidence like this, but all three courts deem it as factual that the two consider each other their alibi.

Not only this, there has been absolutely nothing from Knox nor her lawyers, nor Judge Nencini (a known blabbermouth about this case to the press - as per the investigation against him) has acknowledged the platonov-claim. Crickets.

Most importantly, neither of Knox's or Sollecito's appeals to Cassazione even mention this.

No one seems to know about this betrayal, except a die-hard band of the pro-guilt lobby with an agenda. These are people who have had an obvious agenda to just make stuff up.

Take Machiavelli for instance. There are many reasons why a frequent poster takes a vacation from posting to these web-services. If there are 100 reasons, only one or two could be said to be sinister.

So with that said, Mr. Machiavelli has not been back since he refused to post "Dr." Stefanoni's C.V. He spent post after post after post protesting the insult to "Dr." Stefanoni, that she probably does not have a Ph.D. He was shown how the history of Italian education allowed the term "Dr." to be used by a whole host of lesser-academic lights than people who've completely a doctoral program and defended a thesis.

He responded at one point that it was obvious she had a Ph.D. Then he just gave up on the challenge that he post her C.V. or something, anything really, that supports this claim.

Crickets. Yet the reason for him not returning is 33x more likely to be innocent than sinister.

One last thing - which is on topic here because it belongs to the long, long, long list of pro-guilt lobby claims that actually get THEM in trouble more than the target they aim it at.

Remember Machiavelli saying that Stefanoni had actually released the Electronic Data Files to the court, and more particularly offered them to the defence, but his claim was that the defence refused to take them?

Well, in a demonstration of "limited hangout" right here on these pages, this morphed into something else at the fingertips of Machiavelli as he pounded righteously on his keyboard....

It turns out that late in the game Machiavelli introduced a new, and formerly unknown element to this issue - Stefanoni was willing to release the EDFs, but with conditions.

Victor Marchetti wrote: "A 'limited hangout' is spy jargon for a favorite and frequently used gimmick of the clandestine professionals. When their veil of secrecy is shredded and they can no longer rely on a phony cover story to misinform the public, they resort to admitting—sometimes even volunteering—some of the truth while still managing to withhold the key and damaging facts in the case. The public, however, is usually so intrigued by the new information that it never thinks to pursue the matter further."​

Stefanoni wrote a letter to the court protesting that as far as she was concerned, the defence had not asked nicely. As strange as it may seem, Article 111 of the Italian Constitution makes no reference, at all, to the manner in which the defence demands its constitutional right.

But, the judge was convinced. No "ask nicely", no EDFs. Judges in Italy are the first line of defence in the eventual criminal trials of people like Stefanoni.

We haven't seen Machiavelli since - which even I admit is 33x more likely to be innocent than sinister, as these things go on the Internet.

So - what this shows is an appetite these days for the pro-guilt lobby to do what they've always do. Throw muck until something sticks.

Is there evidence that Raffaele is throwing Knox under a bus since the Jan 2014 re-conviction? "Evidence"!? We don't need no stinking evidence!

Okay. Is there ANY indication from ANY of the principals of this case that what platonov says is true, is actually true?

Has Amanda responded with a similar salvo against Raffaele anywhere? Have any of the principles like Ficarra or Napoleoni or Migini or Crini or Nencini or Massei said, "I told you so and here's why?"

Crickets.

Ah, but platonov can compose a post on an obscure website which says this - and like Mr. Machiavelli before him, discovers one wee, tiny, minuscule flaw in the claim. There's no evidence. Indeed, upthread is a Youtube video of Raffaele on Italian TV, and there's barely a mention of Amanda Knox. There's a lot of ridicule of the Italian legal system - on Italian TV - but no mention of Amanda.

Raffaele does what he's always done - challenged people to turn the evidence against him into something that resembles guilt.

It cannot be done. It therefore becomes abundantly clear why the pro-guilt lobby needs to put other words into his mouth, then provide no evidence to back it up.

 

[Bill Williams]

If you believe Amanda when she said she was told about Raffaele then that means Zugarini and Donnino are lying. Why are they lying and what else are they lying about?

If you believe the cops then why would she have this emotional break down and tell them it was Lumumba when she'd already told them about him earlier? Why would she place herself at the scene when she was seen by Popovic and was watching a movie somewhere else?

I have always wondered why John Follain in his book, "A Death in Italy," treats the interrogation leading to the "psychic break" so sparsely. Literally, in his account Amanda has barely time to choke down the biscuits and chamomile tea before breaking under the weight of all that kindness from Ficarra! Follain gets this part of the travesty over with very quickly, and now I have an inkling of the reason why.

John Follain is a PLE-shill.... for other reasons mentioned in this thread. The chief proof is that Follain escaped charges from the same "Curt and Edda defamed PLE" defamation charge, even though it was Follain who wrote the story.

(Which is one reason this will never go to trial. Would not a defence for Curt and Edda be allowed to summon Follain to the stand?)

But the sparseness of Follain's account is that even he, representing the PLE narrative almost word for word, recognizes the inconsistencies. For Follain, Doninno barely exists.

 

[Dan O.]

...
ETA: I believe it is probable that Guede entered the downstairs apartment using a key and left blood from his injured hand on the light switch. The other blood stains are either from Meredith's blood, diluted with water, dripping from his clothes, or from his hand or, possibly, from his knife.

And then he went back upstairs, found that the door had not locked the first time he exited, left the downstairs keys in the entryway and still didn't lock the front door. This doesn't make any sense.


Rudy had a yellow sweatshirt which he had draped over the chair in the kitchen. On his way to the door, his footsteps stop at the table where he picks up this sweatshirt. He says he tied this sweatshirt around his waist to hide the fact that his pants were wet. This is what Rudy says happened and it matches the physical evidence that he left behind. Rudy is giving a description of how witnesses may have seen him dressed as he left the scene. If he was carrying a bundle of clothes to be disposed of, he would need to account for that in his description. He makes no such claim and there is no evidence of any clothes taken from downstairs.


There was lots of visible blood stains downstairs. If blood is visible, it will almost always develop a clear profile. Stefanoni cannot have hidden all of those DNA results without creating a serious trail of the coverup which her boss and the other lab techs would see. All of the inspectors that had first a first hand view of the downstairs apartment would know if there was evidence that pointed to more than a group of untidy boys and an injured cat. The boys from downstairs would know if they were being pressured to keep quiet about any clothing that might have been taken. The prosecution would see all of this. Yet in all these years, not one person with direct knowledge has come forward to say that there was a coverup. This puts the theory of Rudy going downstairs after the murder squarely in the CT camp.

 

[Kauffer]

Platonov will not respond to this. And if not, that proves his/her intentions here are trollish, rather than to advance a case.

Never a truer word.

Platonov has no case to advance. He is all wind and no sails.

 

[Bill Williams]

What they've written in their books really doesn't matter. It's about what people said in the courtroom .I don't even need to know Amanda's version to know the naming of Lumumba was connected to the discovery of the missing text and the "see you later" reply because that's what the cops said. (And it also lines up with what she said)

The books don’t count. Don't let Bill hear you say that.
Why did you bring up the quote from AK’s book if that’s the case?

The pro-guilt lobby specializes in goal-post moving.

MichaelB: "What they've written in their books really doesn't matter."

Platonov: "The books don’t count. Don't let Bill hear you say that."​

Sigh.

MichaelB is saying that the books don't matter. The trial record is clear, even without the book-accounts. What is telling is that someone needs to shift what MichaelB is supposed to be saying and THEN reply. This is known as strawman.

Platonov - can you answer the question. Who is lying?

If you believe Amanda when she said she was told about Raffaele then that means Zugarini and Donnino are lying. Why are they lying and what else are they lying about?

If you believe the cops then why would she have this emotional break down and tell them it was Lumumba when she'd already told them about him earlier? Why would she place herself at the scene when she was seen by Popovic and was watching a movie somewhere else?​

I did not think you'd answer. Time for another strawman.

 

[Bill Williams]

Never a truer word.

Platonov has no case to advance. He is all wind and no sails.

I was thinking all sails and no wind. Obviously your mileage varies.

 

[Numbers]

And then he went back upstairs, found that the door had not locked the first time he exited, left the downstairs keys in the entryway and still didn't lock the front door. This doesn't make any sense.


Rudy had a yellow sweatshirt which he had draped over the chair in the kitchen. On his way to the door, his footsteps stop at the table where he picks up this sweatshirt. He says he tied this sweatshirt around his waist to hide the fact that his pants were wet. This is what Rudy says happened and it matches the physical evidence that he left behind. Rudy is giving a description of how witnesses may have seen him dressed as he left the scene. If he was carrying a bundle of clothes to be disposed of, he would need to account for that in his description. He makes no such claim and there is no evidence of any clothes taken from downstairs.


There was lots of visible blood stains downstairs. If blood is visible, it will almost always develop a clear profile. Stefanoni cannot have hidden all of those DNA results without creating a serious trail of the coverup which her boss and the other lab techs would see. All of the inspectors that had first a first hand view of the downstairs apartment would know if there was evidence that pointed to more than a group of untidy boys and an injured cat. The boys from downstairs would know if they were being pressured to keep quiet about any clothing that might have been taken. The prosecution would see all of this. Yet in all these years, not one person with direct knowledge has come forward to say that there was a coverup. This puts the theory of Rudy going downstairs after the murder squarely in the CT camp.

1. You have made two or three assumptions in your first sentence. These are assumptions and lack supporting evidence:
a) Rudy went back upstairs and put the key(s) he had used back. There is uncertainty as to whether all the keys were recovered and in the history of the keys allegedly found by the police allegedly in the entryway.
b) In exiting the upstairs flat after replacing the key(s), assuming he had done this, Rudy would have noticed that the door had not locked and he would have taken the time to lock it. If (a) had not occurred, than this assumption would seem invalid.

2. The draped yellow sweat shirt does not seem relevant to what may have occurred downstairs. Even if he took a pair of pants from the downstairs, he may have needed to account for the presumed sweatshirt.

3.1 I can only puzzle over your statements about Stefanoni and her boss and the other lab techs. Her boss testified that (paraphrasing) Stefanoni was an unimpeachable expert and her work was entirely credible. Yet, from the evidence that she grudgingly surrendered to the defense, and which has been gone over by experts some of whom have posted here on ISF or have placed results into www.amandaknoxcase.com, the work she and her team from the scientific police did in evidence collection, blood analysis, and DNA quantification and profiling reflected a combination of incompetence, malpractice, fraud, and ultimately perjury and denial of discovery to the defense. {I will add for clarity that I am only a beginner in forensics, but I have followed the arguments of the above-mentioned experts.}

3.2 The boys from downstairs may have been intimidated by possible criminal charges against them because of the marijuana plants that one was growing. My impression is that the police and judicial system in Italy have a chilling effect on people expressing their legal rights and the non-judicially approved truth. Consider the situation of Patrick Lumumba, who apparently initially claimed police mistreatment, but then abandoned that claim to join, as a civil party, the case against Amanda Knox.

3.3 Conspiracies happen; they happen in cases of police misconduct in the United States. There is no reason to believe that police conspiring in misconduct could not occur in Italy. The real CT is to ignore the blatant lack of scientific evidence in attributing the blood downstairs to cat, to ignore the failure of the prosecution to report the human DNA profiles obtained from the alledged cat blood, and to have a fixed view about this matter. If a scientific test had been done to demonstrate that the alleged cat blood was indeed non-human, and had been validly recorded, there would be no issue. But the police did not do and/or did not record, AFAIK, such a confirmatory antigen-antibody test for human blood, although such tests were relatively inexpensive and commercially available and commonly used by forensic police in the Western democracies in 2007.

 

[platonov]

Platonov will not respond to this. And if not, that proves his/her intentions here are trollish, rather than to advance a case.

I say, steady on old chap. Rolfe will be on your case

Never a truer word.

Platonov has no case to advance. He is all wind and no sails.

ditto

 

[Numbers]

Never a truer word.

Platonov has no case to advance. He is all wind and no sails.

I was thinking all sails and no wind. Obviously your mileage varies.

The attempt to place the November 5/6, 2007 illegal interrogations of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito under a kind of microscopic examination to determine if someone is guilty of something can only come to one conclusion:
The police were guilty of conducting two illegal interrogations that violated the rights of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. The rights of these two persons that were violated are those found in Italian law, under the Italian Constitution, and under the European Convention of Human Rights.

Nothing that Amanda or Raffaele said or allegedly said or statements that they signed, may be used to convict either one of them of any crime, because the interrogations were conducted without counsel present for the subjects. Furthermore, the statements that Amanda wrote after the end on the interrogation, while she was in police custody, cannot be used to convict her, because, she was not provided with counsel during that period. The ECHR case-law is completely clear in these matters; citations include but are not limited to: Salduz v Turkey, Brusco v France, Dayanan v Turkey, and Ibrahim and others v the UK.

 

[Bill Williams]

I say, steady on old chap. Rolfe will be on your case




ditto

What did I tell you. I've been getting PMs telling me not to feed trolls.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

luminol and footwear in another case

The issue of contamination, luminol, and footwear came up in the Lundy case as well, but is obviously pertinent here. Link. I am not saying that the police in either case were unusually bad; rather, I am suggesting that the average level of competence is not what one would like to see.

 

[Strozzi]

And then he went back upstairs, found that the door had not locked the first time he exited, left the downstairs keys in the entryway and still didn't lock the front door. This doesn't make any sense.

Rudy had a yellow sweatshirt which he had draped over the chair in the kitchen. On his way to the door, his footsteps stop at the table where he picks up this sweatshirt. He says he tied this sweatshirt around his waist to hide the fact that his pants were wet. This is what Rudy says happened and it matches the physical evidence that he left behind. Rudy is giving a description of how witnesses may have seen him dressed as he left the scene. If he was carrying a bundle of clothes to be disposed of, he would need to account for that in his description. He makes no such claim and there is no evidence of any clothes taken from downstairs.


There was lots of visible blood stains downstairs. If blood is visible, it will almost always develop a clear profile. Stefanoni cannot have hidden all of those DNA results without creating a serious trail of the coverup which her boss and the other lab techs would see. All of the inspectors that had first a first hand view of the downstairs apartment would know if there was evidence that pointed to more than a group of untidy boys and an injured cat. The boys from downstairs would know if they were being pressured to keep quiet about any clothing that might have been taken. The prosecution would see all of this. Yet in all these years, not one person with direct knowledge has come forward to say that there was a coverup. This puts the theory of Rudy going downstairs after the murder squarely in the CT camp.

Is there any evidence that Rudy picked up the downstairs key, recognized what it was, used it to gain entry downstairs, and then returned upstairs to hang the downstair's key on the wall hook/nail inside the front door of the upstairs flat? Self-preservation would suggest that a murderer would not want to expose himself again by entering a murder flat after he had already cleared out, unless it was really necessary to go back. What would be the purpose of returning the key? What would he be covering up by doing that?

 

[Bill Williams]

The attempt to place the November 5/6, 2007 illegal interrogations of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito under a kind of microscopic examination to determine if someone is guilty of something can only come to one conclusion:
The police were guilty of conducting two illegal interrogations that violated the rights of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. The rights of these two persons that were violated are those found in Italian law, under the Italian Constitution, and under the European Convention of Human Rights.

Nothing that Amanda or Raffaele said or allegedly said or statements that they signed, may be used to convict either one of them of any crime, because the interrogations were conducted without counsel present for the subjects. Furthermore, the statements that Amanda wrote after the end on the interrogation, while she was in police custody, cannot be used to convict her, because, she was not provided with counsel during that period. The ECHR case-law is completely clear in these matters; citations include but are not limited to: Salduz v Turkey, Brusco v France, Dayanan v Turkey, and Ibrahim and others v the UK.

That may be the compelling legality of it.....

But we're all just a bunch of Monday-morning quarterbacks, way, way up in the bleachers not bound, really, by law.

We can comment all we like, and make all the allegations our tiny fingers can pound out from the keyboard.

The point being: even water-cooler speculation eventually condemns the PLE. Some know-it-all from the cubicle down the hall actually reads the transcripts, then comes to the watercooler at a break to spoil things. One watercooler-expert says blithely, "Raffaele just threw Amanda under a bus...." Everyone knowingly nods....

.... except the know-it-all who says (quite rightly, by the way, which makes him all the more annoying), "Well, did you know that that cannot really be said about the interrogation. First of all, the cops can't agree on a timeline of who knew what, and when they knew it - or even on a timeline of what they told Amanda and Raffaele, holding them in separate rooms. Absent a videotape, cops are free to make it up as they go - yet, with more than one cop making things up, it becomes apparent when you read what they actually said, they cannot agree on what happened and when it happened."

Of course, everyone at the watercooler privately thinks, "This is why this guy has no friends."

During the afternoon break the guy says: "I've just finished Follain's account of the interrogation......" and we all look around to see if the boss is watching!!!

"Despite having detailed accounts of secretly recorded prison conversations, which he could ONLY have gotten from the PLE, Follain's narrative of the critical interrogation is incredibly brief, makes literally next to no mention of Anna Donnino. I now know why......"

And he presses on, oblivious to us now thinking that this is the reason he'll probably never have children- much less any longevity in this company......

"He knows that the various people who he had access to to write 'A Death in Italy,' tell almost mutually exclusive things about the critical interrogation."

The guy continues talking to no one in particular, even after we've all returned to our cubicles.

"So Follain doesn't really mean to imply that Amanda Knox broke because Ficarra plied her with biscuits and chamomile tea, until Amanda literally went catatonic because of all the kindnesses she was being shown......."

"Follain is forced to be brief because to go into too much detail with what the likes of Napoleoni or other PLE were telling him - while passing him secretly recorded prison transcripts - because to write it all would be to prove they entrapped AK and RS in the most classic way cops entrap their suspects - put them in differing rooms and tell each that the other is ratting them out."

The woman from HR has been notified that this guy's cubicle is empty, and he's blathering still to the water-cooler!

She gets on the phone, calls Seattle - a little firm called Gogerty-Marriott: "Listen, Dave. We need to unload an employee. Yes, it is to save a lawsuit... can you use another set of hands in your PR conspiracy? We really need to get rid of this guy."

And as security is escorting him to the street, he yells out, "But did you know that Follain was left out of the lawsuit against Edda and Curt! What more do you need to see the agenda here.....?"

 

[carbonjam72]

The issue of contamination, luminol, and footwear came up in the Lundy case as well, but is obviously pertinent here. Link. I am not saying that the police in either case were unusually bad; rather, I am suggesting that the average level of competence is not what one would like to see.

Well Geez, talk about bringing down the average. Is that really fair to group results together and call it representative?