Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[anglolawyer]

The Nencini report certainly assumes they were asking for a retesting of 165B, which Nencini then turns around and says is not logical since it no longer exists. It almost sounds like Nencini is being sarcastic - he says that anyone asking for a "retesting" should consult Conti&Vecchiotti, and given that C&V acknowledge that 165B is no longer, any suggestion otherwise would impugn C&V's professionalism.

​

Is Nencini going for sarcasm with this reason to refuse "testing" on 165B? Did the defence request a re-analysis of Stefanoni's results?

I read this passage of Nencini as sarcasm. I posted about it a few pages ago. And re-reading it he certainly seems to be saying the defence wanted to re-test the clasp, which is pretty weird IMO.

 

[Bill Williams]

The Nencini report certainly assumes they were asking for a retesting of 165B, which Nencini then turns around and says is not logical since it no longer exists. It almost sounds like Nencini is being sarcastic - he says that anyone asking for a "retesting" should consult Conti&Vecchiotti, and given that C&V acknowledge that 165B is no longer, any suggestion otherwise would impugn C&V's professionalism.
Is Nencini going for sarcasm with this reason to refuse "testing" on 165B? Did the defence request a re-analysis of Stefanoni's results?

I read this passage of Nencini as sarcasm. I posted about it a few pages ago. And re-reading it he certainly seems to be saying the defence wanted to re-test the clasp, which is pretty weird IMO.

I don't read Italian, so cannot tell, really, if this is part of Sollecito's appeal to Cassazione.

I have read maybe 15 "Reasons for judgement" or "Motivations reports" and cannot recall any one of them, other than Nencini, going for sarcasm in one.

Going for humour at the best of times can lead to misunderstanding for all sorts of reasons. It would simply add to the bizarre nature of this is Nencini admitted to going for sarcasm here.....

 

[Desert Fox]

The digestive evidence IMO is by far the most compelling evidence that supports the early TOD. The phone calls, the wash, Meredith not calling her mother, not taking off her jacket does support that early TOD, but it is anecdotal at best. (Still, it beats Nara and Curatolo)

This is a case that, in a just world, the defense should have been able to bring no case and the prosecution case should have been dismissed. One needs to prove that the defendant is guilty. As I see it, it has not even been approached in this case.

 

[Numbers]

I'd love to say that those phone calls (9:58, 10:00 and 10:13) mean something and they might. Just that they aren't real evidence. All they allow us to do is speculate.

The 10:13 call probably wasn't made from the cottage but not definitively. The cottage has line of sight to the antenna and it is certainly within range. The real issue is the connectivity to the Piazza Lupatelli tower which is ten time closer. Ordinarily, this is a real slam dunk. At the cottage pretty much all the calls would connect to the closer Piazza Lupatelli tower and that would mean that call almost certainly wouldn't connect to the more distant tower.

The real issue is how the cottage is constructed. How thick is the stone and how does that effect the radio signal? There is no window opening facing the close Piazza Lupatelli tower antenna and there is a window opening next to Meredith's desk facing the more distant tower. If Meredith was sitting at her desk it is possible that the call might connect to that tower. But there is no way to know this without testing from inside Meredith's bedroom.

So, as much as I think PQ is full of it usually, he could be right if that was the only evidence.

You will forgive me, but I think the real issues have nothing to do with all the cell tower stuff. It is inconclusive. The real issues are the lack of consistency of Ms Kercher's actions with her prior behaviour that night and behaviour patterns generally, and her stated intention when she left Ms Purton - the fact she never called her mother back and she didn't go to bed.

Contextually, the phone activity makes no sense whatsoever - if Ms Kercher was the source. Real investigators would have concluded that she was attacked and killed shortly after arriving home, very smartly indeed, started looking for a burglar, got the forensics done, caught Guede and properly closed the case quite uncontroversially before November was over.

If the signal diminishes as the square of the distance, and the phone was found close to the distant tower, I think PQ is obviously wrong, but I am not a researcher in this field. You must have technical knowledge about plausibility I don't.

For the cell phone tower evidence, Meredith's phone behavior (her reputed priority to call her mom, and no reason to "play" with her phone by calling her UK bank at about 10 pm and almost immediately disconnecting), that her laundry remained unfinished, that she didn't go to bed (stayed in her day clothes), and the digestive evidence that she likely died closer to 9 pm than 10 pm - an "osmotically" connected whole picture can be drawn.

And that picture is straight-forward: she was attacked very soon after entering her apartment at about 9 pm. She died as a result of the wounds inflicted by the man attacking her - who left an apparent semen deposit on a pillow found under her body - by about 9:30 pm. Also, part of the semen deposit is marked by a distinctive man's shoe print; the shoe sole pattern is identical to that of shoes owned by Rudy Guede. Thus the time of death is about 9:30 +/- 30 minutes. We know death occurred no later than 10 pm because the phone was used by someone other than Meredith at about 10 pm and because of the digestive evidence. The digestive evidence is that her stomach contained all the food she had eaten with her British friends. That is, none of the food had passed through the valve at the end of the stomach; none had entered her small intestine.

 

[Bill Williams]

I can find no specific mention of the appeals document from Raffaele making reference to Nencini refusing to reevaluate Stefanoni's results; except that the document restates the Raffaele's position as if Nencini had not denied analysis....

This is what Raffaele's appeal's document to Cassation says about 165B, and the way it was handled at the Nencini court (translated through Google translate, with all that means):

- accertare se possa essere considerato “genuino” il materiale rinvenuto sul
reperto 165B, tenuto conto delle modalità del suo ritrovamento al di sotto un
tappetino, 46 giorni dopo il delitto, in un luogo diverso da quello in cui si
trovava al momento del primo sopralluogo e in un ambiente in cui si erano
susseguite diverse perquisizioni;

- Whether it can be considered "genuine" the material found on
Exhibit 165B, given the way it was found below a
mat, 46 days after the crime, in a different place from where you
was at the time of the first visit and in an environment where you were
succession of searches;​

Si trattava, quindi, di sottoporre ad una nuova indagine genetica l’altra metà
dell’estratto, ottenuto dalla Polizia Scientifica sul reperto 165b (e non
utilizzato), al fine di ottenere una indispensabile verifica del risultato ottenuto.
Ignorando illogicamente tali aspetti, l’ordinanza del 30 settembre 2013 e poi la
sentenza impugnata hanno ritenuto di poter risolvere i gravissimi contrasti di
ordine scientifico, facendo ancora una volta leva sulla scienza del Giudice.
Ma, in realtà, è insegnamento consolidato quello in base al quale il Giudice non
può mai sostituirsi al ruolo del perito o anteporre personali valutazioni a quelle
degli esperti, in settori dal contenuto altamente tecnico.

It was, therefore, to refer to a new genetic investigation the other half
extract, obtained by the Scientific Police on finding 165b (and not
used), in order to obtain a necessary verification of the result obtained.
Illogically ignoring these aspects, the order of 30 September 2013, and then the
judgment believed that they could solve the serious conflicts of
scientific, making once again leverage the science of the Judge.
But, in reality, is what teaching consolidated under which the Judge does not
can never replace the role of the expert or precede personal assessments for those
experts in fields from highly technical.​

The one above seems to be saying that the "personal assessments" of the judge cannot in reality replace the finds of fact by experts in highly technical fields.

There's also a section in the appeals document on p. 184 which draws in the RIS Carabinieri findings on the kitchen knife - finding nothing new, and still no "cellular material" and it makes some connection with 165B which Google translate makes a mess of.

But to go on.....

The Appeals Document lists more "complaints" about the was 165B was handled, equating it with the way, at first, the Nike prints were attributed to Raffaele, and now no one claims that. But as it relates to 165B, the documents says:

Venuta meno per ammissione degli stessi tecnici della Procura (RinaldiBoemia)
la validità di quell’elemento a carico, si è fatto leva sul gancetto di
reggiseno, elevandolo a prova insuperabile della presenza dell’imputato sul
locus commissi delicti.
In proposito va subito detto che agli atti esiste oggi una perizia che ha espresso
le seguenti conclusioni:
“REPERTO 165B (GANCETTI DI REGGISENO)
Relativamente al Rep. 165B (gancetti di reggiseno) riteniamo che gli
accertamenti tecnici effettuati non siano attendibili per i seguenti motivi:
1. non sussistono elementi scientificamente probanti la presenza di presunte
cellule di sfaldamento sul reperto;
2. vi è stata una erronea interpretazione del tracciato elettroforetico degli STRs
autosomici;
3. vi è stata una erronea interpretazione del tracciato elettroforetico relativo al
cromosoma Y;
4. non sono state seguite le procedure internazionali di sopralluogo ed i
protocolli internazionali di raccolta e campionamento del reperto;
5. non si può escludere che i risultati ottenuti possano derivare da fenomeni di
contaminazione ambientale e/o di contaminazione verificatasi in una
qualunque fase della repertazione e/o manipolazione di detto reperto”.

It should be said immediately that the file exists today an expert who expressed
the following conclusions:
"REPERTOIRE 165B (HOOKS BRA)
With regard to Rep. 165B (bra hooks) we believe that the
technical assessments made are not reliable for the following reasons:
1. there is no evidence scientifically convincing the presence of alleged
flaking cells on the findings;
2. there was a misinterpretation of the electrophoretic pattern of STRs
autosomal;
3. there has been a misinterpretation of the electrophoretic pattern relative to
Y chromosome;
4. were not followed international procedures of inspection and
international protocols for the collection and sampling of the find;
5. can not be excluded that the results obtained may result from phenomena
environmental contamination and / or contamination occurred in a
any stage of repertazione and / or manipulation of that finding. "
​

On pages 204ff, a full discussion of 165B takes place, mainly citing the illogic of relying on this as the sole piece of hard evidence pointing towards Raffaele at the scene, being something found 46 days later in a different place at that scene. "International standards would have disqualified 165B on that point alone," is a rough translation of the Italian.

The appeal also raises the issue of the reverse-burden of proof that Cassazione has set with regards to the contamination of 165B.

Then there is this:

Quanto alla interpretazione dei risultati, secondo la Suprema Corte, le
osservazioni dei consulenti di controparte (Novelli e Torricelli, sebbene di
altrettanta consistenza culturale rispetto ai periti) non erano state citate, né
fronteggiate nella loro portata dimostrativa, così conclamando un evidente
vizio motivazionale, dal momento che la decisione avrebbe dovuto dimostrare
di non aver ignorato le argomentazioni dei consulenti (pag. 67 sent. Cass.).
Così delineato il quadro della pronuncia di annullamento su tale specifico
tema, giova sin da subito precisare che la sentenza di rinvio – come in un
gioco di specchi – sia caduta nel medesimo errore compiuto dalla Corte
d’Assise di Appello di Perugia, ma a parti invertite, capovolgendo cioè gli
esiti del processo sulla base di una radicale svalutazione dei risultati cui
erano giunti i periti Vecchiotti-Conti e i consulenti delle difese KnoxSollecito.

As to the interpretation of the results, according to the Supreme Court, the
observations of the consultants counterparty (Novelli and Torricelli, although
as much consistency with respect to cultural experts) were not mentioned, nor
faced in their scope demonstrative, so an obvious conclamando
vice motivational, since the decision would have to prove
had not ignored the arguments of the consultants (p. 67 sent. Cass.).
I have outlined the framework of the annulment judgment on this specific
theme, it should be right now to point out that the order for reference - as in a
game of mirrors - has fallen into the same error made by the Court
Assize of Appeals of Perugia, but roles reversed, ie the inverting
results of the process on the basis of a radical devaluation of the results which
were arrived at by the experts and advisers of the Conti-Vecchiotti KnoxSollecito defenses.​

Raffaele is saying that the Nencini court is, in essence, making the same mistake the ISC said the Hellmann court made.

The appeals document also want Cassazione to weigh the odds of the Y-Haplotype, typed to Raffaele in relation to all other males who could be said to have been "in the room" based on that as evidence. The appeals document includes an international database used to calculate such things, using Bayesian analysis, a "Bayesian estimate of the frequency of the haplotype in question. It is a method called Frequency Surveying."

The result is that one can, "estimate that at the time of the discovery of the hook in Perugia there were about 280 subjects (in Perugia) with the same haplotype of Raffaele." (And this is before considering contamination.....)

And finally, the report references that there were no testing-controls provided to the defence:

4) del reperto 165B-gancetto non viene fornito alcun controllo né
positivo né negativo: a tutt'oggi non esiste ancora alcuna evidenza che
esistano controlli di qualità di PCR relativamente a questo reperto;

4) of the find 165B-hook does not come any control
positive or negative, to date there is no evidence yet that
there are quality control of PCR in relation to this finding;​

There appears nothing making reference to Nencini not allowing "retesting" or "reevaluation", it is a restatement, really, of all we knew after the Hellmann report.

 

[acbytesla]

For the cell phone tower evidence, Meredith's phone behavior (her reputed priority to call her mom, and no reason to "play" with her phone by calling her UK bank at about 10 pm and almost immediately disconnecting), that her laundry remained unfinished, that she didn't go to bed (stayed in her day clothes), and the digestive evidence that she likely died closer to 9 pm than 10 pm - an "osmotically" connected whole picture can be drawn.

And that picture is straight-forward: she was attacked very soon after entering her apartment at about 9 pm. She died as a result of the wounds inflicted by the man attacking her - who left an apparent semen deposit on a pillow found under her body - by about 9:30 pm. Also, part of the semen deposit is marked by a distinctive man's shoe print; the shoe sole pattern is identical to that of shoes owned by Rudy Guede. Thus the time of death is about 9:30 +/- 30 minutes. We know death occurred no later than 10 pm because the phone was used by someone other than Meredith at about 10 pm and because of the digestive evidence. The digestive evidence is that her stomach contained all the food she had eaten with her British friends. That is, none of the food had passed through the valve at the end of the stomach; none had entered her small intestine.

I don't disagree with any of this. I just don't care for osmosis when it comes to murder trials. There is no real evidence implicating Amanda and Raffaele and if there was, I would dismiss in entirety the anecdotal information that Mez didn't call her mother back or remove the clothes from the washer.( I can't tell you how many times, I forgot the wash or didn't call Mom.) These points are far more persuasive than Toto or Nara, but they are tiny little points and certainly not conclusive.

I find the lack of DNA, fingerprints, motive, emails, texts or phone calls to/from Rudy to be far more persuasive than Meredith's wash.

 

[Numbers]

Bill Williams wrote:
"I can read Numbers's posts, but in all honesty, I cannot really understand them except for the very general points he's claiming."

Bill,

I hope it's only the (too long) quotations from the ECHR judgments that are causing the problem.

They sometimes are a bit obscure. I was certainly confused when I started to read them because they frequently use little Latin catch-phrases to prove that they are lawyers.

For example, they frequently use the phrase "mutatis mutandis" which at first I thought meant "Teen-age mutant turtles are coming" but really means something like "make the necessary changes (in reading and interpreting the reference citation case in order to apply it to the present case)".

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill Williams wrote:
"I can read Numbers's posts, but in all honesty, I cannot really understand them except for the very general points he's claiming."

Bill,

I hope it's only the (too long) quotations from the ECHR judgments that are causing the problem.

They sometimes are a bit obscure. I was certainly confused when I started to read them because they frequently use little Latin catch-phrases to prove that they are lawyers.

For example, they frequently use the phrase "mutatis mutandis" which at first I thought meant "Teen-age mutant turtles are coming" but really means something like "make the necessary changes (in reading and interpreting the reference citation case in order to apply it to the present case)".

The problem is me, not you. My mind tends to glaze over....

 

[Numbers]

I don't disagree with any of this. I just don't care for osmosis when it comes to murder trials. There is no real evidence implicating Amanda and Raffaele and if there was, I would dismiss in entirety the anecdotal information that Mez didn't call her mother back or remove the clothes from the washer.( I can't tell you how many times, I forgot the wash or didn't call Mom.) These points are far more persuasive than Toto or Nara, but they are tiny little points and certainly not conclusive.

I find the lack of DNA, fingerprints, motive, emails, texts or phone calls to/from Rudy to be far more persuasive than Meredith's wash.

acby,

Perhaps we are disagreeing about the value of examining bits of evidence for consistency? The adding up of one set of bits by itself may not be persuasive, but when there are enough sets of bits that are all consistent, that can be persuasive.

Adding all the sets of bits of real evidence, and not the BS (false) "evidence" from the "eye-witness" Curotolo heroin addict and the "ear-witness" little old lady who may be nuts and/or hard of hearing and the fake or contaminated DNA evidence, one reaches the conclusion that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito had absolutely no part in the murder and rape of Meredith Kercher; they are innocent.

ETA: Only reliable bits of evidence may be added together.

 

[tsig]

(highlighting mine)
tsig,

The truth of your statement may lie with one's definition of PG organization, but it is a misleading statement IMO. A poster named "tsik" or "tsit" posted at perugiamurderfile several years ago, and that person at least claimed to be you IIRC.

I am curious, however, what facts lead to your conclusion that Ms. Knox's statement was not coerced. I am also curious whether or not you think that the interrogations that evening should have been recorded, not as a question of Italian law, but as general question of best operating procedure.

I do post occasionally on PMF, I think my post count is approx. 70. I went there when another poster* went there but my membership at that forum no more makes me a member of a anti-Knox group than your membership here makes you a member of a pro-Knox group.

Amanda Knox walked into the station of her own free will and could have left at any time til she placed herself at the scene of the crime so how could she be coerced?


ETA: *Fiona, we were both members of the IIDB and the RDF


EETA: I registered there as tsit due to a fat finger and I once tried to get it changed but that was about the time of forum split and it hasn't seemed that important.

 

[acbytesla]

acby,

Perhaps we are disagreeing about the value of examining bits of evidence for consistency? The adding up of one set of bits by itself may not be persuasive, but when there are enough sets of bits that are all consistent, that can be persuasive.

Adding all the sets of bits of real evidence, and not the BS (false) "evidence" from the "eye-witness" Curotolo heroin addict and the "ear-witness" little old lady who may be nuts and/or hard of hearing and the fake or contaminated DNA evidence, one reaches the conclusion that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito had absolutely no part in the murder and rape of Meredith Kercher; they are innocent.

ETA: Only reliable bits of evidence may be added together.

I agree, but if those shoe prints actually did match Raffaele's shoes, you wouldn't care about those bits either. In the absence of real incriminating they speak volumes, but only in that void.

From my perspective there is no real incriminating evidence and these tiny bits should be unnecessary as the prosecution fails to present evidence that incriminates beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I'm in the who-the-hell-knows category, mostly because the key elements of Wilds' story seem to have been crafted to match some of the cell phone evidence rather than being corroborated by it. He told it several different ways (where the murder happened, where he was shown the body, how the grave was dug, etc.)

I haven't seen anything that looks convincing in terms of motive for either of them, and especially Syed. He's a good suspect as a former boyfriend, but wow. The descriptions of him provided by other students and teachers who knew him well are far more like Amanda than like a violent & bitter ex.

The only person who claimed that Syed really wanted Hae Lee dead was Wilds -- the guy who also knew where and how she was buried and where her car had been left.

I trust your instincts, so I'm a little surprised. It all seems pretty sketchy to me. And the Kercher case has taught me that stringing together behavioral "evidence" to construct a motive is sometimes an act of cruelty.

I responded here to spare the mods further trouble in keeping the Amanda Knox thread under control.

I agree with Ampulla, however. The Serial Podcast discussion belongs in SI&CE. If a pig on an airliner is good enough for SI&CE, then the buzz surrounding this podcast ought to make the cut.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Amanda Knox walked into the station of her own free will and could have left at any time til she placed herself at the scene of the crime so how could she be coerced?

My understanding is that she did indeed walk into the station of her own free will. However, why exactly do you believe she could have left at any time? Do you believe that the interrogators did not forcefully illicit statements from her nor threaten her in any way?

Do you not think it weird that if she did indeed kill Meredith she went to the station freely on her own? Why in your opinion did she tell them Patrick was there if they were trying to pin it on Rudy? A red flag of false confessions is that the details are wrong.

However, in spite of all that my main question is how do you know she was not coerced at all and how do you know she was free to leave. It seems the only way you could possibly know this is if a) you were there, b) you have seen a recording, or c) you are so impossibly biased that you cannot imagine Amanda is telling the truth nor that police do bad things to get a conviction sometimes.

 

[Desert Fox]

My understanding is that she did indeed walk into the station of her own free will. However, why exactly do you believe she could have left at any time? Do you believe that the interrogators did not forcefully illicit statements from her nor threaten her in any way?

Do you not think it weird that if she did indeed kill Meredith she went to the station freely on her own? Why in your opinion did she tell them Patrick was there if they were trying to pin it on Rudy? A red flag of false confessions is that the details are wrong.

However, in spite of all that my main question is how do you know she was not coerced at all and how do you know she was free to leave. It seems the only way you could possibly know this is if a) you were there, b) you have seen a recording, or c) you are so impossibly biased that you cannot imagine Amanda is telling the truth nor that police do bad things to get a conviction sometimes.

There is a lot of games that detectives play that make "Free Will" technically the case while the actual situation quite a bit different. There quite a number of cases which one can look at with regards to this where we can see this played out.

The Confessions on PBS Frontline is the best place to look but there are plenty of others as well.

 

[Numbers]

I agree, but if those shoe prints actually did match Raffaele's shoes, you wouldn't care about those bits either. In the absence of real incriminating they speak volumes, but only in that void.

From my perspective there is no real incriminating evidence and these tiny bits should be unnecessary as the prosecution fails to present evidence that incriminates beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you are saying that the absence of reliable inculpatory evidence against Amanda and Raffaele means that they are innocent, and that the establishment of Meredith's time of death is therefore irrelevant for establishing their innocence, I would mostly agree with that. But establishing time of death is important to the case overall, and it also is one more item derived from bits of evidence that agrees with (is consistent with) their innocence. If Meredith had been murdered at 12 midnight after going to bed, the absence of any reliable probative trace of Amanda and/or Raffaele at the murder scene - her bedroom - would still indicate their innocence.

 

[Numbers]

I do post occasionally on PMF, I think my post count is approx. 70. I went there when another poster* went there but my membership at that forum no more makes me a member of a anti-Knox group than your membership here makes you a member of a pro-Knox group.

Amanda Knox walked into the station of her own free will and could have left at any time til she placed herself at the scene of the crime so how could she be coerced?


ETA: *Fiona, we were both members of the IIDB and the RDF


EETA: I registered there as tsit due to a fat finger and I once tried to get it changed but that was about the time of forum split and it hasn't seemed that important.

Regarding the part I highlighted - that Amanda could have left at any time - I suggest that once the police had invited her into the interrogation room, she was not free to leave and was effectively in police custody for a custodial interrogation. There were several teams of police taking turns to interrogate her starting at this point. I am confident that had this taken place in the US, she would have been entitled to have her Miranda rights read to her when she entered the interrogation room.

 

[Desert Fox]

If you are saying that the absence of reliable inculpatory evidence against Amanda and Raffaele means that they are innocent, and that the establishment of Meredith's time of death is therefore irrelevant for establishing their innocence, I would mostly agree with that. But establishing time of death is important to the case overall, and it also is one more item derived from bits of evidence that agrees with (is consistent with) their innocence. If Meredith had been murdered at 12 midnight after going to bed, the absence of any reliable probative trace of Amanda and/or Raffaele at the murder scene - her bedroom - would still indicate their innocence.

DNA evidence of Amanda in Meredeth's bedroom would be enough to show probable guilt either. Would have to be something bigger such a bloody fingerprint (or hand prints.) Some injuries on Amanda would also help. Real signs of a clean up would also be incriminating.

 

[Desert Fox]

I do post occasionally on PMF, I think my post count is approx. 70. I went there when another poster* went there but my membership at that forum no more makes me a member of a anti-Knox group than your membership here makes you a member of a pro-Knox group.

Amanda Knox walked into the station of her own free will and could have left at any time til she placed herself at the scene of the crime so how could she be coerced?


ETA: *Fiona, we were both members of the IIDB and the RDF


EETA: I registered there as tsit due to a fat finger and I once tried to get it changed but that was about the time of forum split and it hasn't seemed that important.

From what I understand with police interrogations, one of the ways that you can tell a real confession from a false one is if they get the facts of the crime scene right (without being led through it.) Amanda's "confession" seems to have no details which the real perpetrator would know. Guede's on the other hand seems to even when he tries to blame somebody else.

 

[Numbers]

I do post occasionally on PMF, I think my post count is approx. 70. I went there when another poster* went there but my membership at that forum no more makes me a member of a anti-Knox group than your membership here makes you a member of a pro-Knox group.

Amanda Knox walked into the station of her own free will and could have left at any time til she placed herself at the scene of the crime so how could she be coerced?


ETA: *Fiona, we were both members of the IIDB and the RDF


EETA: I registered there as tsit due to a fat finger and I once tried to get it changed but that was about the time of forum split and it hasn't seemed that important.

Regarding the part I highlighted - that Amanda could have left at any time - I suggest that once the police had invited her into the interrogation room, she was not free to leave and was effectively in police custody for a custodial interrogation. There were several teams of police taking turns to interrogate her starting at this point. I am confident that had this taken place in the US, she would have been entitled to have her Miranda rights read to her when she entered the interrogation room.

I want to add the definition of a "custodial interrogation". Here is one from Wikipedia (my favorite legal text):


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custodial_interrogation

Custodial interrogation

In United States criminal law, a custodial interrogation (or, generally, custodial situation) is a situation in which the suspect's freedom of movement is restrained, even if he is not under arrest.

Per Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966), "custodial interrogation [refers to] questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way." The United States Supreme Court has clarified that a person is being subjected to a custodial interrogation if "a reasonable person would have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave." Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112 (1995). This test is objective and thus does not depend on the individual suspect's subjective mindset, age, or previous personal experience with law enforcement. Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 666-69 (2004). Rather, the ultimate inquiry is whether a normal, reasonable person would feel free to end the encounter with law enforcement and leave the scene. However, J.D.B. v North Carolina states that a child's age properly informs the Miranda analysis.

 

[Numbers]

I want to add the definition of a "custodial interrogation". Here is one from Wikipedia (my favorite legal text):


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custodial_interrogation

Custodial interrogation

In United States criminal law, a custodial interrogation (or, generally, custodial situation) is a situation in which the suspect's freedom of movement is restrained, even if he is not under arrest.

Per Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966), "custodial interrogation [refers to] questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way." The United States Supreme Court has clarified that a person is being subjected to a custodial interrogation if "a reasonable person would have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave." Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112 (1995). This test is objective and thus does not depend on the individual suspect's subjective mindset, age, or previous personal experience with law enforcement. Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 666-69 (2004). Rather, the ultimate inquiry is whether a normal, reasonable person would feel free to end the encounter with law enforcement and leave the scene. However, J.D.B. v North Carolina states that a child's age properly informs the Miranda analysis.

The rule about providing a lawyer to a person under police interrogation is quite strict in the Council of Europe states (including, of course, Italy).

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_6_criminal_ENG.pdf
Guide on Article 6 (Criminal Limb)

Early access to a lawyer is part of the procedural safeguards to which the Court will have particular regard when examining whether a procedure has extinguished the very essence of the privilege against self-incrimination. In order for the right to a fair trial under Article 6 §1 to remain sufficiently “practical and effective”, access to a lawyer should, as a rule, be provided from the first time a suspect is questioned by the police, unless it is demonstrated in the light of the particular circumstances of each case that there are compelling reasons to restrict this right (Salduz v. Turkey [GC], §§54-55).