The True Crime Weblog Message Board

I see many still believe a lot of untrue facts about Patrick. I guess my posts about this on haloscan got lost so I am trying over here (thanks Bluetit for suggesting to post such a topic)

As soon as the British press reported that Patrick:
a) has been beaten by police
b) had fired Amanda
c) had hired Meredith
d) had defined Amanda a queen bee always wanting to be at the center of attention

Patrick immediately responded via the Italian press, TV news,and within days on TV talk shows such as Matrix and Nero su Bianco that:
a) he was never physically abused by the police
b)he has not fired Amanda nor had the intention to do so. He just complained that she wasn't worth much as a waitress because she was spending too much time flirting at one table, while ignoring customers waiting to order at other tables. He added that if she was going to quit he wouldn't miss her services.
c) he had not hired Meredith, but only asked if she wanted to work just for the one upcoming all ladies night as a bartender -not as a waitress
d) he did not know Amanda well, so couldn't give any character judgement, except that she liked to flirt with customers rather than attending tables, and that was detrimental to the business.

Just google Matrix-Lumumba or Nero su Bianco (on utube)-Lumumba-The show is obviuosly in Italian

Thanks, Nicki.

That answers my Question I (even though one may wonder at the unbridled imagination of so many reporters !!!)

What about Question II, though ? In particular, did PL ever testify as to the precise contents of his message to AK ? I am asking because I read somewhere that
' He was interviewed by Perugia public prosecutor Giuliano Mignini, but refused to answer any questions. [... ]
"It was my right not to answer questions and I told the prosecutor that my story was the same as it has been all along - I was at work in my bar and I had nothing to do with this. " '

For answers to my question I (about Patrick L's supposed firing of MK and hiring of Meredith) see Nicki's message (in Clarifications on PL and others) -- thank you, Nicki.

Bluetit wrote:Thanks, Nicki.

That answers my Question I (even though one may wonder at the unbridled imagination of so many reporters !!!)

What about Question II, though ? In particular, did PL ever testify as to the precise contents of his message to AK ? I am asking because I read somewhere that
' He was interviewed by Perugia public prosecutor Giuliano Mignini, but refused to answer any questions. [... ]
"It was my right not to answer questions and I told the prosecutor that my story was the same as it has been all along - I was at work in my bar and I had nothing to do with this. " '

From what PL said on the shows, refusing to answer additional question is just following standard procedure, in the sense that he had nothing else to add or change regarding his alibi and the text message. He sent the message to Amanda because the evening was slow so he didn't need her to go to work, and he had already answered the question as to the precise content of his message.
The only reason why PL hasn't been officially cleared yet is because the investigation is still undergoing, and as such in principle any possible turn may happen.But I see this more of a technicality

Thank you once again, Nicki. I have now listened to the Matrix and Nero su Bianco interviews, but my oral Italian is too bad for me to understand much of what PL said. However, I'll take your word for it that the generally accepted version ("not to come to Le Chic because there were very few customers" or words to that effect) is PL's and that it is absolutely correct.

What about that other version of PL's sms ("Chic staying closed tonight") AK is supposed to have provided the investigators with ? Is there any way to check whether or not it stemmed from another flight of journalistic imagination ? I think it might be important, because if AK did lie (twice, it is said) in this way, we may wonder why ... To reinforce her accusation of PL ? That, IMO, would definitely indicate a malicious, calculating, cold-blooded frame of mind -- and those who claim that PL's name was somehow suggested to (or beaten into !) poor frightened AK would have a hard time trying to argue that the police suggested that version (especially as they were hearing PL's name for the first time on that night).

And did or did not RS tell the truth when he (reportedly) said that AK told him that "she would go to the pub Le Chic to meet friends" (which would presuppose that it would not be closed, of course) ? First step, obviously : did he say it ? Then : did he tell the truth ?

Bluetit wrote:Thank you once again, Nicki. I have now listened to the Matrix and Nero su Bianco interviews, but my oral Italian is too bad for me to understand much of what PL said. However, I'll take your word for it that the generally accepted version ("not to come to Le Chic because there were very few customers" or words to that effect) is PL's and that it is absolutely correct.

What about that other version of PL's sms ("Chic staying closed tonight") AK is supposed to have provided the investigators with ? Is there any way to check whether or not it stemmed from another flight of journalistic imagination ? I think it might be important, because if AK did lie (twice, it is said) in this way, we may wonder why ... To reinforce her accusation of PL ? That, IMO, would definitely indicate a malicious, calculating, cold-blooded frame of mind -- and those who claim that PL's name was somehow suggested to (or beaten into !) poor frightened AK would have a hard time trying to argue that the police suggested that version (especially as they were hearing PL's name for the first time on that night).

And did or did not RS tell the truth when he (reportedly) said that AK told him that "she would go to the pub Le Chic to meet friends" (which would presuppose that it would not be closed, of course) ? First step, obviously : did he say it ? Then : did he tell the truth ?

Hi Bluetit,
PL has always stated the same thing, to police and to the media about the content of the text message. AK may have lied to investigators-and this may be one more reason why the judges have stated that she is"cunning"
and "dangerous".Or, it could again be a twisted report.Alas I don't think it is possible to find out, perhaps we will never know. PL is very well known and liked in Perugia, a symbol of racial integration, and I cannot see any will on the police side to frame him. Also, I will never believe that she has been beaten or has undergone psychological "torture". She is a foreign national from the USA, are you kidding? They are always very careful and in this case I have no doubt they have been extra-cautious. I think it's possible that they have raised voices and warn her that she would have been in deep troubles if she didn't start saying the truth- they are investigating a brutal murder and they have someone totally uncooperative because "they have smoked hash" ... If the tone of questionning was harsh, well I cannot blame them at all.

nicki wrote: PL is very well known and liked in Perugia, a symbol of racial integration, and I cannot see any will on the police side to frame him. Also, I will never believe that she has been beaten or has undergone psychological "torture". She is a foreign national from the USA, are you kidding? They are always very careful and in this case I have no doubt they have been extra-cautious. I think it's possible that they have raised voices and warn her that she would have been in deep troubles if she didn't start saying the truth- they are investigating a brutal murder and they have someone totally uncooperative because "they have smoked hash" ... If the tone of questionning was harsh, well I cannot blame them at all.[/color]

I quite agree with you, Nicki.

Clarifications needed concerning laundry, washing machine(s), etc.

According to at least one of RS's written statements :

“The next morning [Nov. 2nd] we woke around ten and she told me she wanted to go home to have a shower and change her clothes,” he said. “She went off about half past ten and I went back to sleep. When she went off Amanda took an empty plastic bag, telling me it was for dirty washing. She came back around half past eleven and I remember she changed her clothes." [meaning she had changed her clothes at the cottage, presumably].

Now, this has been understood in two ways (if I remember correctly) by different posters :

(a) According to RS, AK laid her hands on an empty plastic bag (in his flat) and went off with it (still empty), telling him that she meant to put some dirty clothes in it (at the cottage) and come back to the flat with the (now full) bag.
[Cf. one of Michael's old posts on HoloScan : "In AK's/RS's statements Amanda left RS's the morning after the murder with an 'empty plastic bag' for 'dirty washing' of 'Amanda's' to be collected from her house"]

(b) According to RS, AK laid her hands on an empty plastic bag (in his flat), told him she was using it (or going to use it) (still at the flat -- he was allegedly in bed, perhaps in another room) to carry some laundry in and went off with the (full) bag.

Interpretation (a) would have very strange implications indeed : that AK meant to do the washing at RS's flat, and so presumably that there was no usable washing machine at the house ...

Interpretation (b) would fit in with the fact that the washing machine at the house was running when the police arrived (and stopped shortly afterwards). However, one might wonder why AK did not do the washing at the boyfriend's ; I cannot believe that RS's flat had no washing machine in it (I seem to remember this flat was a roomy, rather nice one).

Perhaps you will say that this does not matter at all, as RS's statement is a load of you-know-what anyway. But I think it may be important. The suspects have probably been mixing bits of truth with their lies (cf. the celebrated mop -- thanks, Minotaur !), and I think we should worry any strange detail like terriers worrying a bone !

Questions :
- What is the original Italian version of this part of RS's statement ? Is it any clearer than the translation quoted above ?
- What (if anything) did AK say/write on this topic ?
- Is there a washing machine at RS's flat ?

PS. Further questions.
- I suppose the early story of AK and some "North African" man washing things at a launderette has long been discredited. Any confirmation of that supposition ? [I hope so -- not a 3rd washing machine, please !]
- Does anyone know (approximately) how long a washing cycle (at the house) would last ?
- What about the contents of the machine at the cottage ? Most people seem to accept that there were Meredith's (bloodied ?) clothes mixed with AK's. But has it ever been officially confirmed ?

Oh, well, I do hope it will all come out in the wash !

http://tinyurl.com/4npond
According to La Stampa article:
At 11 p.m. AK is still in the waiting room awaiting to be interrogated; meanwhile she speaks to a policewoman about Meredith's friends, about Rudy (she knew him as the "Baron", his nickname), and tells the policewoman that Raffaele took acid and cocaine in the past, he now only smokes dope, and suffers of depression.Strange things to tell a cop according to me...

At 1.45 she accuses Patrick and soon afterwards while she is waiting to be taken to jail she writes her first memorial in English, asking that all the cops read it, where she states that she is not sure about what she has just confessed, she was under stress and she had been hit, she confusely remember about Patrick, she remember blood on Raffaele hands, but she doesn't think he killed Meredith.ect .Interestingly, this happens right after Raffaele changes his mind about Amanda being at his place and admits he has said a bunch of bull.

La Stampa report pretty much the same as Corriere and Messaggero, so I tend to take it as the truth. Therefore, were does the 14 hours interrogation story come from? What I get from here is that she has been interrogated for about a couple of hours only, and spent the rest of the time writing the memorial where she is retracting most of what she had just said.

Bluetit
I 'm going thrugh the old articles in order to find some info re the laundry and empty plastic bag. I'll post again here soon I hope
Have a nice weekend

http://tinyurl.com/4npond
According to La Stampa article:
At 11 p.m. AK is still in the waiting room awaiting to be interrogated; meanwhile she speaks to a policewoman about Meredith's friends, about Rudy (she knew him as the "Baron", his nickname), and tells the policewoman that Raffaele took acid and cocaine in the past, he now only smokes dope, and suffers of depression.Strange things to tell a cop according to me...

At 1.45 she accuses Patrick and soon afterwards while she is waiting to be taken to jail she writes her first memorial in English, asking that all the cops read it, where she states that she is not sure about what she has just confessed, she was under stress and she had been hit, she confusely remember about Patrick, she remember blood on Raffaele hands, but she doesn't think he killed Meredith.ect .Interestingly, this happens right after Raffaele changes his mind about Amanda being at his place and admits he has said a bunch of bull.

La Stampa report pretty much the same as Corriere and Messaggero, so I tend to take it as the truth. Therefore, were does the 14 hours interrogation story come from? What I get from here is that she has been interrogated for about a couple of hours only, and spent the rest of the time writing the memorial where she is retracting most of what she had just said.

Bluetit
I 'm going thrugh the old articles in order to find some info re the laundry and empty plastic bag. I'll post again here soon I hope
Have a nice weekend

nicki, interesting refresh about the length of interrogation. Was the 14 hours stated by Amanda's family? I think they are (CMellas) prone to a bit of exaggeration!

Also, I agree with you that it was weird for Amanda to tell the police about the drugs RS had taken, especially since she wasn't a suspect at the time. Was she already planting a seed in the event of things going any further?

Nicki,
Some of your information here contradicts information gathered elsewhere. Finn, Minotaur and Damian have developed a timeline for the passage from witness to suspect and also the various statements (it's here under timeline or start discussion here, I believe). And here's Frank's answer to my question about when PL was accused (at 5:45 not 1:45). Also, the spontaneous written statement was done on the evening of Nov 6, not between 1:45 and 5:45.

Frank:

Spontaneous statements is when you ask to release them.
At 1.45 her statements where "a chaos" so it appeared clear to them that she knew what happened and she was trying to hide it. And they stated her "indagata".
At 5.45 she accused P.L.
The memoir she wrote has been judged admissible ex art. 237 c.p.p. ("documents from a suspect can be acquired"). A written document is something different than an interrogation.

Do you know what time RS and AK were taken in for questioning on November 5?

skeptical bystander wrote:Nicki,
Some of your information here contradicts information gathered elsewhere. Finn, Minotaur and Damian have developed a timeline for the passage from witness to suspect and also the various statements (it's here under timeline or start discussion here, I believe). And here's Frank's answer to my question about when PL was accused (at 5:45 not 1:45). Also, the spontaneous written statement was done on the evening of Nov 6, not between 1:45 and 5:45.

Frank:

Spontaneous statements is when you ask to release them.
At 1.45 her statements where "a chaos" so it appeared clear to them that she knew what happened and she was trying to hide it. And they stated her "indagata".
At 5.45 she accused P.L.
The memoir she wrote has been judged admissible ex art. 237 c.p.p. ("documents from a suspect can be acquired"). A written document is something different than an interrogation.

Do you know what time RS and AK were taken in for questioning on November 5?

My information is a translation of the La Stampa article for which I have provided a link. It would be interesting to see the original articles in Italian and see how they differ.

I posted the following on Fri May 02, 2008 5:40 am [sorry, I seem to have lost the knack of displaying a quote in a neat box ...]

" Clarifications needed concerning laundry, washing machine(s), etc.

According to at least one of RS's written statements :
“The next morning [Nov. 2nd] we woke around ten and she told me she wanted to go home to have a shower and change her clothes,” he said. “She went off about half past ten and I went back to sleep. When she went off Amanda took an empty plastic bag, telling me it was for dirty washing. She came back around half past eleven and I remember she changed her clothes." (...)
- What is the original Italian version of this part of RS's statement ? Is it any clearer than the translation quoted above ? "


I have now found the original Italian. It is from RS's Nov. 6th statement.
http://canali.libero.it/affaritaliani/p ... .html?pg=2

"La mattina successiva ci siamo svegliati verso le 10 e lei mi ha detto che voleva andare a casa a farsi una doccia e cambiarsi gli abiti. Infatti è uscita verso le 10.30 e io mi sono rimesso a dormire. Quando è uscita Amanda ha preso anche una busta vuota, dicendomi che le sarebbe servita per metterci i panni sporchi. Verso le 11.30 è ritornata a casa e ricordo che si era cambiata i vestiti. Aveva con sé la solita borsa"

So the plastic bag problem does not seem to be solved in any clear way. Note, however, that (according to this statement by RS) when AK came back to the flat she had her usual handbag/purse with her, presumably (in this context) instead of the plastic bag she was carrying when she had gone off ; perhaps this is a slight indication that interpretation (b) is the correct one : RS probably meant that AK had taken the dirty clothes from his place to the house ... Then why didn't she do the washing (or indeed take a shower) at the flat ?? Was she so solicitous of RS that she shrank from disturbing his sleep ? Mmmm ...

I wonder why (still according to RS) AK had left her usual bag at the house instead of having it with her at the boyfriend's ?? This bag presumably had money and personal items in it ...

[quote="nicki"]http://tinyurl.com/4npond
According to La Stampa article:
she remember blood on Raffaele hands, but she doesn't think he killed Meredith.ect .Interestingly, this happens right after Raffaele changes his mind about Amanda being at his place and admits he has said a bunch of bull.



Hi Nicki,

Are you absolutely certain that AK saying RS had blood on his hands from the fish dinner was covered in the written statement she gave after the supposed statement taken under duress (now inadmissable). I thought she said that in a later prison diary or letter where she was questioning how one earth Rafaelle could possibly have been involved ?

Rafaelle didn't change his mind about AK being at his place until he was brought in for questioning AFTER AK's night of interogation. Remember also that by the time RS went in for his interogation, this time as a suspect, the police already had a (coerced) confession from AK that she was at the cottage with PL. So suddenly his first alibi needs to be changed,
it seems it didn't take long for the interogators to get him to do this. At this stage of the investigation, how they got him to say that and why he would have said that are open to conjecture. It could be assumed he tripped himself up because he is guilty, or that statement was co-erced out of him for obvious reasons (happy to elaborate if not obvious).

Regards the laundry bag going back to the cottage, SB posted a segment from AK's first statement a few days ago (I'm trying to locate it) where AK said she took dirty clothes back with her from RS's, in the bag, back to the cottage.

Would be interesting to get copies and translations of all suspects statements to go with the timelines now done for these.

Oceania8 wrote:

Regards the laundry bag going back to the cottage, SB posted a segment from AK's first statement a few days ago (I'm trying to locate it) where AK said she took dirty clothes back with her from RS's, in the bag, back to the cottage.

Would be interesting to get copies and translations of all suspects statements to go with the timelines now done for these.

Yes, Oceania, such a thread ("Suspects' statements, etc.") would be VERY handy.

It is not true that RS changed his story only after AK falsely accused PL. RS was questioned first. This information is contained in the various timelines that have been thoroughly researched, regularly updated and generously provided by Minotaur, FinnMacCool and Michael. They are under Timelines on this message board. In any case, here's an official translation from the Italian press:

BOYFRIEND’S LIES – The printouts of telephone calls examined by the post office police proved crucial to establishing the movements of those involved. They were also incompatible with earlier statements. The first to admit to talking “a whole lot of rubbish” was Raffaele Sollecito. He was questioned at the police station at 10.40 pm on 5 November, two days ago. He had already been interviewed after Meredith’s body was discovered but claimed he did not know what had happened. “I was out with Amanda”, he had said. [b]Then he realised that the situation had changed and decided to change his version of events.
Raffaele Sollecito’s statement begins at 10.40 pm on Tuesday. “I’ve known Amanda for a fortnight. She’s been sleeping at my flat since the evening we met. On 1 November, I woke up at about 11 am. I had breakfast with Amanda and then she left. I went back to bed. I got to her place at 1 or 2 pm. Meredith was there but she left in a hurry about 4 pm without saying where she was going. Amanda and I went into town at 6 pm or so but I can’t remember what we did. We were in the town centre until 8.30 or 9 pm. At 9 pm, I went home on my own while Amanda said she was going to Le Chic because she wanted to see some friends. That’s when we said goodbye. [/b]I went home, smoked a joint and had dinner but I can’t remember what I ate. At about 11 pm, my dad called on the landline. I remember that Amanda hadn’t come back yet. I surfed the net for another two hours after dad called and only stopped when Amanda got back, at about 1 am, I suppose.

Oceania wrote:Are you absolutely certain that AK saying RS had blood on his hands from the fish dinner was covered in the written statement she gave after the supposed statement taken under duress (now inadmissable)...

...the police already had a (coerced) confession from AK that she was at the cottage with PL.

[font=Comic Sans MS]Just to clear up any possible confusion by anyone mistaking your implying a misfact regarding your first above quoted statement, the court did 'not' rule as inadmissable AK's statement due to it being made 'under duress' either as fact, evidence or accusation of any form of rule breaking by the ILE. It was ruled inadmissable solely as a legal technicality, that being the statement was made whilst AK was a 'witness', not as a 'formal suspect'. This is because under Italain law, one can not have a 'witness' statement used as evidence against them, since as a witness they have not been read their full 'suspect' rights/caution nor given access to a lawyer.

Regarding your second above quoted statement. You state that AK's statement was 'coerced' and you state it as 'fact', rather then as opinion. There has been no coercion established in fact or even evidenced. Therefore, you cannot state it was 'so', even if you 'believe' it to be the case (that you can state), since in fact 'faith' is the only thing existing to say it 'did' happen. The Supreme Court judges certainly did not share that belief.[/font]

Oceania8 wrote:

nicki wrote:http://tinyurl.com/4npond
Are you absolutely certain that AK saying RS had blood on his hands from the fish dinner was covered in the written statement she gave after the supposed statement taken under duress (now inadmissable). I thought she said that in a later prison diary or letter where she was questioning how one earth Rafaelle could possibly have been involved ?

See Finn MacCool's post under Timeline (made on April 26th). He covers this subject in detail. It was in the written statement made voluntarily on November 6 that AK mentions the blood on RS's hands. Finn also covers RS's questioning, with times and content amply provided.

This should clear up any lingering confusion.

As for the idea of making the suspects statements available in one place, anyone who wants to should pursue this useful task. It would be a great opportunity for anyone who wants to review these statements. There is AK's written statement on Nov 6 and the prison diaries of both RS and AK. AK's interview with the Italian press in early December may also be useful. She was replying to written questions through her lawyer.

[font=Comic Sans MS]For the purpose of keeping the board simple and tidy I am now locking this thread. Should anyone feel they need to continue to discuss this topic, please do so in the 'Continue discussion here as of May 29, 2008' thread:

http://truecrimeweblog.freeforums.org/c ... 8-t33.html

If you feel it essential this topic be unlocked, please contact a Moderator via PM.

Michael (Moderator)[/font]