Tapes were made in Mignini's office by him, in the prison but in the interrogation room no one is taped by the police:
"But in a police station, at the very moment of the investigation it isn’t done, not with respect to Amanda or anyone else."
In Italy I have never heard of the police taping anyone at the Questura under questioning. Actually, I wonder if it's even legal. I'm under the impression it's not done in Germany either (laws made after the war).
In 2007 very few police stations were equipped with recording equipment in the US as well. But prison recordings, wire tapping etc. were carried out all the same.
In the US as well as Italy, it's mostly your word against the police (certainly so back in 2007).
Precisely : the prosecution went out of their way to make sure they recorded routine questioning of witnesses, in an office not otherwise AV equipped, but somehow didn't make sure extra special questioning of a specifically called in witness was recorded, despite being in a room apparently equipped for exactly that purpose.
Not sure what the US has to do with this, we have had recording in the UK for quite some time now, even to the point where an accurate record must be kept regardless of the location of questioning (and you must be allowed to view the record). Even informal interviews must result in some form of accurate written record, excluding any actual statement itself.
Regardless of legal status, we know the police and prosecution made great effort to make AV recordings of witnesses under questioning, and made great effort to recover incidental recordings from AV devices that we know to have been active within the building. Legality was certainly not a concern in numerous incidences before, so that cannot be used as an excuse.
No matter which way you try to cut it, the behaviour of the police on the night was a serious departure from their established behaviour.
The court transcripts show this was not a forced confession.
Great. You carry on believing that. It's not true, but I never contested that it was a forced confession (you may have noticed that I'm not Bill Williams). I referenced a form of
false confession which is
not of the
forced sub-type. I even explicitly pulled you for confusing the two.
Please do me a kindness and respond to what I write, and stop having an arguement with some imaginary posistion. I spend time writing these posts, please have the maturity to spend time and actually read them properly.