Continuation Part Eight: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Desert Fox]

I've always wondered about what I would do if I was in a situation where I was suspected of a murder that I didn't commit. How would I handle an interview/interrogation. I think at the age of twenty they would have made mincemeat out of me and I could have ended up mistakenly saying something that could be seen as incriminating.

Today, I think I could handle it. But maybe that is just arrogance speaking. I do believe that the moment you say you won't talk you become suspect number one. As people who are innocent don't actually think that anyone could believe them to be guilty. After all they know they are innocent and talking can only help put this behind them. This is what I see was going through Amanda and Raffaele's mind when they chose to answer the police's questions in interview after interview.

But this might be a fair warning to any and every one. It might be one thing to answer the police's questions the first time. Maybe at the scene of the crime or in your own home on your own turf but the moment they ask you to police hq and start asking you questions in a tiny room, it's time to shut up and just ask for a lawyer. (If that time wasn't earlier)

I think I would be the opposite. I believe I would fold to any interrogation and quickly. I am also afraid that I could not keep my mouth shut.

My smartest idea is to request a lawyer and try my best just to shut up because you will never talk your way out.

 

[Matthew Best]

Regarding Lawyer's Weekly article concerning Reid Technique, I could read it yesterday but today the link takes me to a subscriber only page. I googled it, however, and found another path to the article. Try http://www.lawyersweekly.ca/index.php?section=article&volume=34&number=5&article=4

Thanks, Strozzi!

 

[acbytesla]

I think I would be the opposite. I believe I would fold to any interrogation and quickly. I am also afraid that I could not keep my mouth shut.

My smartest idea is to request a lawyer and try my best just to shut up because you will never talk your way out.

I think yours is the smarter strategy as it is usually the people that "think they are smarter" than those who play the game every day are the one's that get themselves in trouble.

 

[Kestrel]

I think I would be the opposite. I believe I would fold to any interrogation and quickly. I am also afraid that I could not keep my mouth shut.

My smartest idea is to request a lawyer and try my best just to shut up because you will never talk your way out.

The interrogation of Tim Masters at age 15 is a good example of what to expect. The officer spent something like 8 hours setting traps to get a confession out of this innocent kid.

 

[Desert Fox]

I think yours is the smarter strategy as it is usually the people that "think they are smarter" than those who play the game every day are the one's that get themselves in trouble.

Even caught speeding, you best response when asked is "I don't know."

 

[Desert Fox]

The interrogation of Tim Masters at age 15 is a good example of what to expect. The officer spent something like 8 hours setting traps to get a confession out of this innocent kid.

On iffy wireless broadband at the moment so cannot watch it. I am almost 46 years old and would probably confess myself.

 

[acbytesla]

Even caught speeding, you best response when asked is "I don't know."

Can't disagree with that.

 

[acbytesla]

On iffy wireless broadband at the moment so cannot watch it. I am almost 46 years old and would probably confess myself.

I'm having a similar problem. Timothy Masters is one of the worst and absurd convictions ever though. He did however stick it to Colorado after he got out. Was awarded 10 million dollars that was paid by Fort Collins.

 

[Strozzi]

I've always wondered about what I would do if I was in a situation where I was suspected of a murder that I didn't commit. How would I handle an interview/interrogation. I think at the age of twenty they would have made mincemeat out of me and I could have ended up mistakenly saying something that could be seen as incriminating.

Today, I think I could handle it. But maybe that is just arrogance speaking. I do believe that the moment you say you won't talk you become suspect number one. As people who are innocent don't actually think that anyone could believe them to be guilty. After all they know they are innocent and talking can only help put this behind them. This is what I see was going through Amanda and Raffaele's mind when they chose to answer the police's questions in interview after interview.

But this might be a fair warning to any and every one. It might be one thing to answer the police's questions the first time. Maybe at the scene of the crime or in your own home on your own turf but the moment they ask you to police hq and start asking you questions in a tiny room, it's time to shut up and just ask for a lawyer. (If that time wasn't earlier)

Everyone should carry a card in their wallet saying "i respectfullly decline to answer any questions without an attorney present. All communication to me are to be directed to my attorney, whose name and contact information is on the reverse." Enterprising attornies should put this on the reverse of their business card and issue it freely to everyone, including teenagers.

Travelers going abroad should carry something similar, certainly if going to Italy. As I suggested earlier, AmericanExpress, Visa, etc should put together a network of English-speaking local lawyers in Italy and elsewhere to represent anyone in need. There should be one phone number to call in Italy and that answering service should brief the foreigner to say nothing until the attorney is on the line.

Charge a fee of $20 per month while traveling abroad. Credit card companies, etc. might make the service free to card-holders who use their card to charge plane tickets, hotel rooms, etc.

I nominate Raffaele and Amanda as compensated spokespersons.

 

[Anode]

Even caught speeding, you best response when asked is "I don't know."

Tried that last time I got pulled over. Cop asked "do you know how fast you were going?" Figured if I said "yes 85MPH!", cop would say "Good, here's your ticket". If I said "yes 65MPH!" cop would say "you're lying, here's your ticket."

Instead I said "No, officer, I'm afraid I hadn't looked at the speedometer lately". He said: "Well, that shows you're just not paying attention!" He followed with many rapid fire questions and further accusations giving me little time to come up with an answer that I could think about.

This proved to me that there just was no good answer to this cop's question.

After another minute of similar questions and me politely dodging them he finally said. "Well, now I've got you for illegal lane change, reckless driving, speeding, and following too closely." I thought that it wasn't going well so decided to switch the game plan to "contrite". I mean, what did I have to lose? I apologized and said it was just pure frustration at the traffic activity around me. I actually made a pretty good speech.

He went back to his bike for a minute, returned and told me this is my lucky day. Because I accepted responsibility and apologized he would let me go with a warning. So to this day, I think he was just practicing his interrogation technique. I mean, if you look at what happened, it was an interrogation that resulted in a confession. (By the way, I was guilty of most of those infractions but honestly it wasn't much different than anything you see daily on the freeway by many drivers. So it wasn't a false confession.)

This is a situation where I was interrogated for something I was guilty of. The obvious difference is that the stakes for me were not very high. A speeding ticket is annoying and may cost a little but it's a far cry from murder. I still don't know what would happen if I was accused like AK was. Especially if it were in a foreign country. I'd hope to keep declaring innocence and ask for a lawyer but I wouldn't bet a lot of money that I'd be able to last...

 

[AmyStrange]

Interview or interrogation

-

Personally I believe all interrogations (or interviews) by the police should be videotaped. It might not solve all the problems with false confessions, but it would certainly help stop some of them or at least the jury could see what was going on while and what exactly the police did to get the information they got, and is definitely better evidence then an investigator's notes, at least in my opinion.

I was interviewed once by the police and after giving my statement, they started making snide remarks about what I had said, implying that I was lying. That just pissed me off and I finally just simply said, "What are you calling me a liar, well then why should I even keep talking to you."

They kept at me for an hour but I just shut the hell up and finally they just gave up although they were pretty mean and demeaning all that time.

To hell with them.

I don't know what I would have done if I had been in Amanda's place, but I do know what I did do in that case.

I also believe false confessions and their results should be a required course in high school. Many people who confess just do it to get the police off their back and many of them have said afterwards that they just wanted it to end and gave the police what they wanted, thinking that surely eventually they would see that they were not guilty by the evidence, but that is rarely the case.

Shutting up and asking for a lawyer and sticking to it is definitely a good plan, but that's not always the easy choice,

d

-

 

[Desert Fox]

This is a situation where I was interrogated for something I was guilty of. The obvious difference is that the stakes for me were not very high. A speeding ticket is annoying and may cost a little but it's a far cry from murder. I still don't know what would happen if I was accused like AK was. Especially if it were in a foreign country. I'd hope to keep declaring innocence and ask for a lawyer but I wouldn't bet a lot of money that I'd be able to last...

I have a feeling that with any major crime, you better get a lawyer as soon as there is any sign of law enforcement interest. Even assuming that you at first allow an interview, Amanda and Raff should have assumed after a few days that it was too much interest. Amanda should have taken refuse in the Embassy and spoke through a lawyer.

 

[Strozzi]

All those close to Meredith of course wanted to help the police. It helps the police to reconstruct the whereabouts and movement of everyone the previous evening. In my view, perfectly reasonable for Amanda and Raffaele to tell the police when they were last with Meredith, where she was heading that evening, etc. - and that Amanda and Raffaele left the cottage at X time for his place, we're inside his flat from Y time the previous evening until Z time the next morning. There is no need to have to detail to the police what they specifically did inside Raffaele's flat from Y time until Z time. It is irrelevant what they ate, what they read or watched, what they wore, what time they started or finished any of that, The only reason the police would want or need that information is to attempt to develop discrepancies; meaning that they are now looking at them with suspicion (even though not yet suspects).

 

[acbytesla]

Tried that last time I got pulled over. Cop asked "do you know how fast you were going?" Figured if I said "yes 85MPH!", cop would say "Good, here's your ticket". If I said "yes 65MPH!" cop would say "you're lying, here's your ticket."

Instead I said "No, officer, I'm afraid I hadn't looked at the speedometer lately". He said: "Well, that shows you're just not paying attention!" He followed with many rapid fire questions and further accusations giving me little time to come up with an answer that I could think about.

This proved to me that there just was no good answer to this cop's question.

After another minute of similar questions and me politely dodging them he finally said. "Well, now I've got you for illegal lane change, reckless driving, speeding, and following too closely." I thought that it wasn't going well so decided to switch the game plan to "contrite". I mean, what did I have to lose? I apologized and said it was just pure frustration at the traffic activity around me. I actually made a pretty good speech.

He went back to his bike for a minute, returned and told me this is my lucky day. Because I accepted responsibility and apologized he would let me go with a warning. So to this day, I think he was just practicing his interrogation technique. I mean, if you look at what happened, it was an interrogation that resulted in a confession. (By the way, I was guilty of most of those infractions but honestly it wasn't much different than anything you see daily on the freeway by many drivers. So it wasn't a false confession.)

This is a situation where I was interrogated for something I was guilty of. The obvious difference is that the stakes for me were not very high. A speeding ticket is annoying and may cost a little but it's a far cry from murder. I still don't know what would happen if I was accused like AK was. Especially if it were in a foreign country. I'd hope to keep declaring innocence and ask for a lawyer but I wouldn't bet a lot of money that I'd be able to last...

A very big difference.

The idea that lying or not talking is going to keep you the officer from issuing a ticket or from being convicted in court isn't very realistic. If the officer wants to write you a ticket, you're going to get a ticket.

That is a very different situation from being put in a small room and asked about how your friend was murdered. And what you were doing when it happened.

 

[Desert Fox]

Personally I believe all interrogations (or interviews) by the police should be videotaped. It might not solve all the problems with false confessions, but it would certainly help stop some of them or at least the jury could see what was going on while and what exactly the police did to get the information they got, and is definitely better evidence then an investigator's notes, at least in my opinion.

If you listen to the interview of Jessie Misskelley, he was lead by the nose by the police yet the confession was still considered compelling evidence.

 

[acbytesla]

All those close to Meredith of course wanted to help the police. It helps the police to reconstruct the whereabouts and movement of everyone the previous evening. In my view, perfectly reasonable for Amanda and Raffaele to tell the police when they were last with Meredith, where she was heading that evening, etc. - and that Amanda and Raffaele left the cottage at X time for his place, we're inside his flat from Y time the previous evening until Z time the next morning. There is no need to have to detail to the police what they specifically did inside Raffaele's flat from Y time until Z time. It is irrelevant what they ate, what they read or watched, what they wore, what time they started or finished any of that, The only reason the police would want or need that information is to attempt to develop discrepancies; meaning that they are now looking at them with suspicion (even though not yet suspects).

Exactly Strozzi. It is one thing for Amanda and Raffaele to have answered the police questions on the first day. But from that day on, they absolutely should have had a lawyer. Because that means it is clear they are seriously being considered suspects.

 

[Strozzi]

I have a feeling that with any major crime, you better get a lawyer as soon as there is any sign of law enforcement interest. Even assuming that you at first allow an interview, Amanda and Raff should have assumed after a few days that it was too much interest. Amanda should have taken refuse in the Embassy and spoke through a lawyer.

No, there is no reason Amanda should have taken refuge in the US Embassy in Italy. They would not have provided it. What they would have provided is a bland list of attorneys who self-selected themselves to be on such a handout.

I worked in US embassies and consulates in Africa and Asia. They do not provide refuge to Americans from local law enforcement. They would provide shelter in case of civil unrest until the local authorities can either stabilize the unrest or provide safe escort to Americans to airports, seaports, border crossing points.

Don't confuse this with providing political asylum, which are extreme situations.

 

[Anode]

A very big difference.

The idea that lying or not talking is going to keep you the officer from issuing a ticket or from being convicted in court isn't very realistic. If the officer wants to write you a ticket, you're going to get a ticket.

That is a very different situation from being put in a small room and asked about how your friend was murdered. And what you were doing when it happened.

Yes of course, completely different. I was guilty, the cop was the witness. I guess I just wanted to make a point that saying "I don't know" to a cop, at least in my case, escalated things to me "not paying attention" and to him adding additional charges until I confessed to the one thing he was looking for.

I try to extrapolate to what would happen if I were accused of something serious like AK and RS were and it's just hard to tell from my example because as you say, it's not the same situation. But after my simple traffic encounter, I'm not optimistic.

 

[Desert Fox]

I worked in US embassies and consulates in Africa and Asia. They do not provide refuge to Americans from local law enforcement. They would provide shelter in case of civil unrest until the local authorities can either stabilize the unrest or provide safe escort to Americans to airports, seaports, border crossing points.

Don't confuse this with providing political asylum, which are extreme situations.

How about when a woman goes to Japan and is effectively treated as a sex slave. The Embassy will get you home.

Still, my main argument is that she should have realized there is something pretty strange going on and done whatever she could to protect herself.

 

[acbytesla]

Yes of course, completely different. I was guilty, the cop was the witness. I guess I just wanted to make a point that saying "I don't know" to a cop, at least in my case, escalated things to me "not paying attention" and to him adding additional charges until I confessed to the one thing he was looking for.

They know they are "putting you in a box with that very first question of "Do you know how fast you were driving". Trust me they know that. My answer to that question is "I believe I do"...leaving it at that ..but not telling them how fast. Then if they bear down on the question by asking "how fast", you flip the question. "How fast do you think I was driving?"

I try to extrapolate to what would happen if I were accused of something serious like AK and RS were and it's just hard to tell from my example because as you say, it's not the same situation. But after my simple traffic encounter, I'm not optimistic.

I get it Anode. But obviously it doesn't really compare and I know you recognize that. One is Tee Ball and the other is the Major Leagues.