Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
The false narrative pushed by the PGP that Knox and Sollecito (but especially Knox) were not the primary suspects by the time both of them walked into the questura on Nov. 5 is risible.
The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 28
- Thread starter Stacyhs
- Start date
- Status
The ECHR sums this evidence of concentration on Knox, showing that she was a de facto suspect before the Nov. 5/6 interrogation, succinctly:
"151. It observes in that regard that the applicant had already been heard by the police on 2, 3 and 4 November 2007 and that her cell phone had been tapped. It notes that the facts of the case also show that, on the evening of 5 November 2007, the attention of the investigators focused on the applicant (see paragraphs 12-14 above). It notes that while she went to the police station spontaneously, she was asked questions in the corridor by police officers who then continued to interrogate her in a room where she had been previously subjected twice, for hours, to close interrogations."
Google translation with my help.
I think we are absolutely in agreement that Knox and Sollecito were "soft targets" or, in my terminology, "convenient suspects".
I am still an agnostic about whether or not the police and/or Mignini were intentionally protecting Guede. Your points on this are suggestive but not compelling. What would be the most convincing evidence would be finding some documented link between Mignini or even another prosecutor or the police and Guede, showing that he was their collaborator, from any time prior to November 1, 2007.
AFAIK, the documentation closest to showing some links between Guede and the Perugia police is on the last page of the following:
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-co...fic-police-report-Rudy-Guede-fingerprints.pdf
That page shows Guede's criminal record as of November 16, 2007, and includes two items: 1) the break-in at the Milan nursery, October 27, 2007, as recorded at the Milan police station; and 2) his presence at the Perugia police station on June 16, 2006, relating to "law 189/2002 Article 5 paragraphs 2 and 4", which is an immigration law. Most likely (based on my attempt at Google translation of the legal text), Guede went to the police station to have his residence permit renewed. This apparently included his being finger-printed and palm-printed in accordance with the law. Sources (the official Italian text of the changes in the law is the first; the second is apparently a PDF of the entire law with the changes):
https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2002/08/26/002G0219/sg
https://ec.europa.eu/anti-trafficki...s_._286_98_-_testo_unico_sullimmigrazione.pdf
Last edited:
I don't find the available evidence that I know of to be compelling support for the hypothesis that the authorities were attempting to protect Guede because of their alleged prior relationship. That is not to say that it is not a possibility.
It may also be significant that Guede may have been known generally in Perugia because he had been, as I have read, a star basketball player on the local team and had been taken in by the wealthiest family in Perugia.
I do believe that when Guede was found, based upon clear and convincing forensic evidence, to be responsible for the crimes against Meredith, the Italian authorities did their best to use him to cover-up their violations of Italian law – procedural and criminal - in the way they brought Amanda and Raffaele into the case as alleged perpetrators. I believe that the prosecution of Amanda and Raffaele was pursued largely to protect the police and prosecutor from being charged with crimes, including those listed in the Boninsegna Court motivation report acquitting Amanda of calunnia against the police.
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2011
- Messages
- 1,960
Good to see the ECHR was able to pick up on the obvious!
It would be an interesting debate to present this data to those involved in the investigation and have them explain how this doesn't prove Amanda and Raffaele were the primary suspects.
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2011
- Messages
- 1,960
Agree completely, but would add that, IMHO, there was also an element of protecting ego and pride. I mean, how embarrassing, after this grand, global media event proclaiming how wonderful they were to be able to solve the crime so quickly, that they would have to turn around and say "whoops, we arrested three people without first waiting for the forensic results to come in, and now that we have those results we see those three had nothing to do with it, and that the actual perp, who was easily matched to the forensics, has skipped the country. Our bad." This would be especially true for Mignini, who was already dealing with the embarrassment of his bogus indictments and violations of law.
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
This is why it is particularly condemning to the original "amnesiac" investigation that the final Supreme Court acquittal cited what it cited as the reason for exonerating Sollecito and Knox.
Regardless of anything else, it is an insurmountable fact that no forensics leading to either of them was found in the murder room.
I believe it's no accident that the Italian Supreme Court put it that way.
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
I agree. IMO, there was a substantial element of face saving/la bella figura mentality by the police and prosecution in the way they handled the case.
TomG
Muse
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2014
- Messages
- 692
To remain agnostic you'd have to come up with a pretty good reason not to arrest and detain for being in possession of the laptop from Brocchi Palazzoli office as well as the gold watch that could have come from the burgled home of Maria Diaz. You'd also have to offer a plausible reason why Rudy would have used the photocopier at the Brocchi Palazzoli office and left files strewn all over the place. I think Mignini's theory of someone being protected was conceptualised along with the theory of the staged break-in. I also think that if Mignini hadn't been so compromised by the cops, and perhaps his own mishandling of Rudy during the hours after Meredith was found, he would have went with the obvious fact that the break-in was actual and resolved the case with Rudy as the only killer as per Occam's razor.
Hoots
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
Regarding Guede's release from the Milan police after being caught in the school, I don't think it's ever been established exactly who ordered it or why. I've read that it was the Perugia police who ordered it but I've also read that it was the Milan prosecutor who had 'more important' things to deal with than some out of town, small time thief. I can understand the Milan prosecutor kicking him to the curb, but if the orders came from Perugia, that would need an explanation as a petty theft in Milan would not concern them.
Last edited:
I agree that Rudy's release after being apprehended inside the nursery school that he had illegally entered with items stolen elsewhere indicates perhaps with certainty that he was being protected or his crime was being temporarily ignored. But I am not sure if he was being protected because of his alleged relationship with the Perugia police or because of his certain (but allegedly no longer close, at the relevant time) relationship with the wealthiest family in Perugia or both. Since according to the Italian Constitution and law, a prosecutor must prosecute each and every crime that is notified to him or of which he becomes aware, the failure to immediately prosecute Guede for the nursery school incident is highly suggestive.
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
Indeed. In either case, the Milan prosecutor or the Perugia police were not following that law. Not that that would EVER happen!
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Sophie Purton had her phone tapped and was not allowed to leave Italy.
Should she have been placed under arrest and cautioned that she was a formal suspect?
Of course not.
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
Did the police and Mignini ever say that they suspected Purton as they admitted they suspected Amanda as early as Nov. 2? Mignini has admitted he thought it was an "inside job" immediately and began to suspect Amanda when he saw her acting "inappropriately" with Raffaele (when he comforted her outside) and when she 'broke down' when taken back to the cottage.
Purton was never a suspect. Your inability to admit that Knox and Sollecito were more than "witnesses" by Nov. 5 is intellectual dishonesty.
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
All this is of course completely correct.
But you can also add: did the police ever tell Purton that they knew she wasn't telling them the truth and that she had better now tell them the truth otherwise she faced decades in prison?
Because as much as there's very strong evidence that the police/PM considered Knox a suspect well before the evening of 5th November (per your points), there's virtually incontrovertible evidence from that 5/6 Nov interrogation that the police HAD to have believed Knox to be a suspect of a serious criminal offence - whether protecting the perpetrator, or lying to the police, or direct involvement in the murder itself - at some point prior to her initial verbal "confession/accusation". And after all, as far as law and ethics are concerned, it's relatively irrelevant as to at which precise point the police/PM considered Knox a criminal suspect. The important matter is that the evidence from that final police interview of Knox shows that it must have been at some point prior to her first verbal "buckling". Whether it was minutes before that, or hours before that, or days before that, is of less importance.
I'm going out on a limb here, and suggesting that the police conducting witness interviews with Purton never did shout at her that they knew she wasn't telling them the truth, or threaten her with lengthy incarceration, or cuff her on the back of her head, or make her "buckle"......
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
All this is of course completely correct.
But you can also add: did the police ever tell Purton that they knew she wasn't telling them the truth and that she had better now tell them the truth otherwise she faced decades in prison?
Because as much as there's very strong evidence that the police/PM considered Knox a suspect well before the evening of 5th November (per your points), there's virtually incontrovertible evidence from that 5/6 Nov interrogation that the police HAD to have believed Knox to be a suspect of a serious criminal offence - whether protecting the perpetrator, or lying to the police, or direct involvement in the murder itself - at some point prior to her initial verbal "confession/accusation". And after all, as far as law and ethics are concerned, it's relatively irrelevant as to at which precise point the police/PM considered Knox a criminal suspect. The important matter is that the evidence from that final police interview of Knox shows that it must have been at some point prior to her first verbal "buckling". Whether it was minutes before that, or hours before that, or days before that, is of less importance.
I'm going out on a limb here, and suggesting that the police conducting witness interviews with Purton never did shout at her that they knew she wasn't telling them the truth, or threaten her with lengthy incarceration, or cuff her on the back of her head, or make her "buckle"......
Oh, come now. Amanda 'buckled' from all that chamomile tea!
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
Edited by zooterkin:
<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.
Read it a couple of times. It actually makes no point.
Last edited by a moderator:
All this is of course completely correct.
But you can also add: did the police ever tell Purton that they knew she wasn't telling them the truth and that she had better now tell them the truth otherwise she faced decades in prison?
Because as much as there's very strong evidence that the police/PM considered Knox a suspect well before the evening of 5th November (per your points), there's virtually incontrovertible evidence from that 5/6 Nov interrogation that the police HAD to have believed Knox to be a suspect of a serious criminal offence - whether protecting the perpetrator, or lying to the police, or direct involvement in the murder itself - at some point prior to her initial verbal "confession/accusation". And after all, as far as law and ethics are concerned, it's relatively irrelevant as to at which precise point the police/PM considered Knox a criminal suspect. The important matter is that the evidence from that final police interview of Knox shows that it must have been at some point prior to her first verbal "buckling". Whether it was minutes before that, or hours before that, or days before that, is of less importance.
I'm going out on a limb here, and suggesting that the police conducting witness interviews with Purton never did shout at her that they knew she wasn't telling them the truth, or threaten her with lengthy incarceration, or cuff her on the back of her head, or make her "buckle"......
In addition, Purton never stated that she had been coerced by the police into making a statement, nor was she arrested, prosecuted, and convicted for making a statement in an interrogation without a defense lawyer or with the suggestive misconduct of an interpreter, a police agent who as acting in concert with the police interrogators to obtain a coerced false statement. Purton never alleged she had been subjected to any coercive treatment or other mistreatment by the police that would have credibly constituted inhuman or degrading treatment.
Thus, Italy could not be said to have violated Purton's Convention rights under Articles 6.1 with 6.3c or Articles 6.1 with 6.3e. Since Purton made no claim to the authorities of mistreatment, Italy could not be considered to have violated either limb of Convention Article 3 in her case.
In comparison, the ECHR Chamber judgment found that Italy had violated Knox's Convention rights as follows:
Violation of Articles 6.1 with 6.3c (unfair trial resulting in conviction based on a statement made under questioning without a defense lawyer)
Violation of Articles 6.1 with 6.3e (unfair trial resulting in conviction based on the failure to provide a fair interpreter during questioning)
Violation of Article 3 in its procedural limb (failure of the authorities to conduct an effective and independent investigation of a credible claim of inhuman or degrading treatment during questioning).
We are now awaiting a decision from the Grand Chamber Panel on Italy's request for referral of the case to the Grand Chamber. If the Grand Chamber reviews the case, according to current ECHR case-law, all of the violations found by the Chamber would still hold.
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
You're right. There is no point. It's just nonsense.
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't at all disagree with this. And I see that you agree with my statement.
I will emphasize how potentially legally difficult the position of the police and Mignini was after it became clear that Patrick Lumumba had a solid alibi for the relevant time of Meredith's rape and murder. He was released and the charges against him dropped, but the police continued to keep his pub closed; they claimed it was a "crime scene". I don't know whether Lumumba filed any claim with the authorities that he had been mistreated by the police during his arrest and/or interrogation. There was, of course, a Daily Mail article which contained such claims that Lumumba allegedly made to the reporter. I am aware that Lumumba accepted an award of money in settlement of his claim of false arrest or unfair detention.
Now consider the position of Mignini and the police with the release of Lumumba. Mignini's theory of the crime as shown in his arrest warrant included making Knox a central character in their dark fantasy of the crime. The theory relied primarily on her false statements made during the interrogation and the message on her cell phone to Lumumba. She had already, on November 6, soon after her statements incriminating Lumumba, indicated in a statement written in English and which she gave to the police around 1 pm, that they were not reliable and that she had been coerced into making them.
The police and prosecutor sought to protect themselves from an Italian prosecutor possibly charging them with a number of criminal offenses. The likely ones are laid out, as I have previously posted, at the beginning of the Boninsegna motivation report that acquits Knox of calunnia against the police and Mignini. And, of course, Mignini had already faced trial for charges relating to abuses of power in the extended Monster of Florence case.
So Mignini and the police faced two choices when the charges against Lumumba were dropped:
1. Drop the charges against Knox and Sollecito. But this would mean her Memoriale 1 could be used against the police and possibly Mignini in an Italian court. It would mean that Mignini agreed that somehow an innocent Knox came up with this whopper about Lumumba during the interrogations, including the one he conducted after that of the police, in which he clearly violated Italian procedural law. Mignini's career would be placed in great jeopardy again; he would even risk being criminally convicted.
2. Keep the charges against Knox and Sollecito. This would mean that Knox's Memoriale 1 was not to be considered as true. Furthermore, to protect the police and Mignini, Knox's (allegedly coerced) statements incriminating Lumumba would now need to be interpreted as her voluntary attempt to protect the real murderer, Rudy Guede, and aggravated calunnia (that is, calunnia to cover up a separate crime) against Lumumba. A conviction of Knox and Sollecito would enhance Mignini's career and his self-evaluation of himself as a real-life Sherlock Holmes. It would likewise preserve and enhance the reputation of the police; they had already been awarded their medals and they intended to maintain that (unearned) prestige.
With those stark choices, what would any morally or psychologically dysfunctional prosecutor do?
Last edited:
- Status