Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Sonia]

I dare say she was brought up as a brat, used to lying and histrionics to get her own way.

Project much?

 

[Kauffer]

They're talking about suspect status, lawyers and right to silence at .net. Seem to be moving in the right direction. Even Ergon has criticised the Questura procedure!

Only Jackie and Hugo can't get their heads around things. Jackie is still obsessed with the idea that the test for suspect status is a reasonableness one - that it doesn't matter if they treated Knox as a suspect, only whether it was reasonable to do so. The problem for him is:

A) it's not the test
B) the courts say she was a suspect and entitled to a lawyer
C) there's testimony that the cops told Knox that Raffaelle had taken away her alibi before Lumumba was named (nobody is concerned about alibis unless they are also concerned about suspicion)
D) it doesn't matter anyway
E) they used statements to convict her

 

[Numbers]

They're talking about suspect status, lawyers and right to silence at .net. Seem to be moving in the right direction. Even Ergon has criticised the Questura procedure!

Only Jackie and Hugo can't get their heads around things. Jackie is still obsessed with the idea that the test for suspect status is a reasonableness one - that it doesn't matter if they treated Knox as a suspect, only whether it was reasonable to do so. The problem for him is:

A) it's not the test
B) the courts say she was a suspect and entitled to a lawyer
C) there's testimony that the cops told Knox that Raffaelle had taken away her alibi before Lumumba was named (nobody is concerned about alibis unless they are also concerned about suspicion)
D) it doesn't matter anyway
E) they used statements to convict her

An excellent summary.

There is no disagreement that the police seized (took) Amanda's cell phone for their examination prior to her naming Lumumba in connection with Meredith's rape and murder. This was done without a warrant.

This police seizure of the phone is a concrete and definitive indication that Amanda was a suspect before she named Lumumba.

This action by the police, and the way that the police were interrogating Raffaele, supports Giobbi's testimony that the police considered Amanda and Raffaele suspects before they entered the police station on November 5, 2007.

That seizure of the phone and the way the police were interrogating Raffaele and Amanda makes clear that the intent of the police was to force them to make incriminating statements during the interrogations.

 

[acbytesla]

An excellent summary.

There is no disagreement that the police seized (took) Amanda's cell phone for their examination prior to her naming Lumumba in connection with Meredith's rape and murder. This was done without a warrant.

This police seizure of the phone is a concrete and definitive indication that Amanda was a suspect before she named Lumumba.

This action by the police, and the way that the police were interrogating Raffaele, supports Giobbi's testimony that the police considered Amanda and Raffaele suspects before they entered the police station on November 5, 2007.

That seizure of the phone and the way the police were interrogating Raffaele and Amanda makes clear that the intent of the police was to force them to make incriminating statements during the interrogations.

I think the simple fact that they were interviewing her in the middle of the night is evidence enough they thought of her as a suspect. Or that they were yelling at her that she was a liar and they knew she was there. Or that they admitted during testimony that they were employing the Reid method. One does not use that on simply a witness. It isn't designed for that. This argument that she wasn't really a suspect is disingenuous.

 

[Numbers]

I think the simple fact that they were interviewing her in the middle of the night is evidence enough they thought of her as a suspect. Or that they were yelling at her that she was a liar and they knew she was there. Or that they admitted during testimony that they were employing the Reid method. One does not use that on simply a witness. It isn't designed for that. This argument that she wasn't really a suspect is disingenuous.

I didn't know this.

Do you have a citation? That would be an important statement.

 

[Bill Williams]

I think the simple fact that they were interviewing her in the middle of the night is evidence enough they thought of her as a suspect. Or that they were yelling at her that she was a liar and they knew she was there. Or that they admitted during testimony that they were employing the Reid method. One does not use that on simply a witness. It isn't designed for that. This argument that she wasn't really a suspect is disingenuous.

IIRC there was never any indication from the cops that they used the Reid Technique by name. Yet following through the testimonies, it is clear that they used elements of it, consciously or not.

Offering suspects opportunity to confess to a scenario that the police "already know" is classic. Actively discouraging innocent talk is classic. Donnino offered an alternate guilt-like scenario to Knox which is classic - Knox was also discouraged from telling her own version, esp. if it was a version which tended to exonerate herself.

It is clear that the cops were not out for further information from Knox, they were looking for confession. This is also consistent with Reid, as well as more generic methods - an interrogation is not a fishing trip for information, it is a focussed method of getting the suspect to agree to what the cops already know.

 

[acbytesla]

I didn't know this.

Do you have a citation? That would be an important statement.

I may be wrong about this. But that is the way I remember it. I'll try and find it.

 

[Diocletus]

They're talking about suspect status, lawyers and right to silence at .net. Seem to be moving in the right direction. Even Ergon has criticised the Questura procedure!

Only Jackie and Hugo can't get their heads around things. Jackie is still obsessed with the idea that the test for suspect status is a reasonableness one - that it doesn't matter if they treated Knox as a suspect, only whether it was reasonable to do so. The problem for him is:

A) it's not the test
B) the courts say she was a suspect and entitled to a lawyer
C) there's testimony that the cops told Knox that Raffaelle had taken away her alibi before Lumumba was named (nobody is concerned about alibis unless they are also concerned about suspicion)
D) it doesn't matter anyway
E) they used statements to convict her

The ECHR smackdown is going to be devastating for clueless Jackie and Hugo. The good point here is that since these two clowns haven't gotten anything right about the case--ever--their continued puzzlement and resistance can only mean that the ECHR will definitely rule in favor of Knox.

I can understand the likes of Jackie not being able to work out the proper test for when a lawyer should be made available, but how can anyone fail to understand your point B, above?

 

[acbytesla]

IIRC there was never any indication from the cops that they used the Reid Technique by name. Yet following through the testimonies, it is clear that they used elements of it, consciously or not.

Offering suspects opportunity to confess to a scenario that the police "already know" is classic. Actively discouraging innocent talk is classic. Donnino offered an alternate guilt-like scenario to Knox which is classic - Knox was also discouraged from telling her own version, esp. if it was a version which tended to exonerate herself.

It is clear that the cops were not out for further information from Knox, they were looking for confession. This is also consistent with Reid, as well as more generic methods - an interrogation is not a fishing trip for information, it is a focussed method of getting the suspect to agree to what the cops already know.

Are you sure? It seems to me that Giobbi or De Felice said this during the trial or during one of the interviews.

 

[Desert Fox]

I didn't know this.

Do you have a citation? That would be an important statement.

I may be wrong about this. But that is the way I remember it. I'll try and find it.

I believe the Frontline episode about the Norfolk Four states this. . . .

 

[Bill Williams]

Are you sure? It seems to me that Giobbi or De Felice said this during the trial or during one of the interviews.

I am 88% sure. The tagging of the term "Reid Technique" to what happened that night is inferred - mainly because most of the elements of it are there. Indeed, from what I've been told these elements once became "the flavour of the week" for interrogators; however, it was the elements not the brand-name per se.

See which of these nine steps can be isolated from the interrogation(s):

The Reid Technique's nine steps of interrogation are:

1. Direct confrontation. Advise the suspect that the evidence has led the police to the individual as a suspect. Offer the person an early opportunity to explain why the offense took place.
2. Try to shift the blame away from the suspect to some other person or set of circumstances that prompted the suspect to commit the crime. That is, develop themes containing reasons that will psychologically justify or excuse the crime. Themes may be developed or changed to find one to which the accused is most responsive.
3. Try to discourage the suspect from denying his or her guilt.
4. At this point, the accused will often give a reason why he or she did not or could not commit the crime. Try to use this to move towards the confession.
5. Reinforce sincerity to ensure that the suspect is receptive.
6. The suspect will become quieter and listen. Move the theme discussion towards offering alternatives. If the suspect cries at this point, infer guilt.
7. Pose the “alternative question”, giving two choices for what happened; one more socially acceptable than the other. The suspect is expected to choose the easier option but whichever alternative the suspect chooses, guilt is admitted. There is always a third option which is to maintain that they did not commit the crime.
8. Lead the suspect to repeat the admission of guilt in front of witnesses and develop corroborating information to establish the validity of the confession.
9. Document the suspect's admission or confession and have him or her prepare a recorded statement (audio, video or written).

 

[acbytesla]

I am 88% sure. The tagging of the term "Reid Technique" to what happened that night is inferred - mainly because most of the elements of it are there. Indeed, from what I've been told these elements once became "the flavour of the week" for interrogators; however, it was the elements not the brand-name per se.

See which of these nine steps can be isolated from the interrogation(s):

​

Just like a Canadian. Speak English.

 

[Numbers]

IIRC there was never any indication from the cops that they used the Reid Technique by name. Yet following through the testimonies, it is clear that they used elements of it, consciously or not.

Offering suspects opportunity to confess to a scenario that the police "already know" is classic. Actively discouraging innocent talk is classic. Donnino offered an alternate guilt-like scenario to Knox which is classic - Knox was also discouraged from telling her own version, esp. if it was a version which tended to exonerate herself.

It is clear that the cops were not out for further information from Knox, they were looking for confession. This is also consistent with Reid, as well as more generic methods - an interrogation is not a fishing trip for information, it is a focussed method of getting the suspect to agree to what the cops already know.

If anyone has watched TV shows such as NYPD Blue, you know elements of the Reid technique, and of the Good Cop/Bad Cop method of interrogation.

 

[LondonJohn]

An excellent summary.

There is no disagreement that the police seized (took) Amanda's cell phone for their examination prior to her naming Lumumba in connection with Meredith's rape and murder. This was done without a warrant.

This police seizure of the phone is a concrete and definitive indication that Amanda was a suspect before she named Lumumba.

This action by the police, and the way that the police were interrogating Raffaele, supports Giobbi's testimony that the police considered Amanda and Raffaele suspects before they entered the police station on November 5, 2007.

That seizure of the phone and the way the police were interrogating Raffaele and Amanda makes clear that the intent of the police was to force them to make incriminating statements during the interrogations.

I'd argue that it's even starker and simpler.

IMO, if the ECHR conclude that there's sufficient evidence to show that prior to Knox's first verbal "confession/accusation" in that 5th/6th Nov interrogation, the police were accusing Knox of having lied to them up to that point about her movements on the night of the murder, and that the police were telling Knox they had evidence that in fact (and contrary to her accounts to them up to that point) she'd met with "the killer" and taken him to the cottage, then the ECHR must conclude that by definition the police were considering Knox as a criminal suspect before she ever opened her mouth to accuse Lumumba. Whether the police suspected Knox of lying to them to protect the killer or they suspected Knox of personal direct involvement in the murder is immaterial. Both of those things are serious criminal offences.

And IMO there's sufficient evidence to allow the ECHR to conclude all of the above. The main pieces of evidence are 1) Knox's continued and unwavering insistence, from the night of the interrogation onwards, that prior to her first "confession/accusation" the police were accusing her of lying and that the police had evidence that she'd left Sollecito's apartment and met up with the killer to go to the girls' cottage; 2) the court testimony of police "interpreter" Donnino, who clearly stated that she'd used a personal example to suggest to Knox that she (Knox) might have suffered traumatic amnesia; 3) the words of Perugia Police Chief de Felice, who told journalists that Knox had "buckled" and "told the police what they (the police) knew to be correct".

So I think it should be straightforward for the ECHR to find that Knox was definitely being considered a criminal suspect well before she ever made her first verbal "confession/accusation" - the infamous "He did it! Patrick! He's bad!" outburst, and that this outburst was directly made in response to something that more-or-less amounted to a police instruction to say that she'd met with Lumumba and taken him to the girls' cottage where he'd attacked and killed Kercher.

But....... even in the (extremely unlikely IMO) event that the ECHR concludes that there's insufficiently strong evidence to allow for such a conclusion, it will then consider what happened (and didn't happened) once Knox made that first "confession/accusation". The indisputable fact that the police went away and typed up a statement for Knox to sign, all without informing her of her rights, is a slam-dunk indicator that Knox was denied her proper rights.

 

[Bill Williams]

If anyone has watched TV shows such as NYPD Blue, you know elements of the Reid technique, and of the Good Cop/Bad Cop method of interrogation.

Criminal Minds had some brutal displays of those nine steps; yet the series was honest enough to show (occasionally) how those steps sometimes misfired.

After a suspect's heartfelt confession once, they reached over and took off his handcuffs and said, "you can go." He said, "What!? I just confessed!!"

They then listed off the classic elements of a false confession, not the least of which was that his story did not fit any of even the tenuous evidence they'd had. IIRC one of the BAU bunch even said, "If we're amassing info in the interrogation, then it's not an interrogation. If he's telling us stuff that doesn't fit what we have, then it is US who need to go back to square one and start again."

 

[Bill Williams]

I'd argue that it's even starker and simpler.

< .......... sinister deletia ........... >​

But....... even in the (extremely unlikely IMO) event that the ECHR concludes that there's insufficiently strong evidence to allow for such a conclusion, it will then consider what happened (and didn't happened) once Knox made that first "confession/accusation". The indisputable fact that the police went away and typed up a statement for Knox to sign, all without informing her of her rights, is a slam-dunk indicator that Knox was denied her proper rights.

It's not much simpler than this. And that after Mignini intervened, circa 2 am, acknowledging to Drew Griffin in 2010 that at the very least her rights kicked in once that first one was signed - what did Mignini do?

He proceeded with a second one! All typed up and presented to her to sign, STILL with no lawyer or independent interpreter - a full 3 3/4 hours after Mignini acknowledged to CNN that her rights were to have kicked in.

No manner of fudging can hide the second memorale.

 

[Numbers]

I'd argue that it's even starker and simpler.

IMO, if the ECHR conclude that there's sufficient evidence to show that prior to Knox's first verbal "confession/accusation" in that 5th/6th Nov interrogation, the police were accusing Knox of having lied to them up to that point about her movements on the night of the murder, and that the police were telling Knox they had evidence that in fact (and contrary to her accounts to them up to that point) she'd met with "the killer" and taken him to the cottage, then the ECHR must conclude that by definition the police were considering Knox as a criminal suspect before she ever opened her mouth to accuse Lumumba. Whether the police suspected Knox of lying to them to protect the killer or they suspected Knox of personal direct involvement in the murder is immaterial. Both of those things are serious criminal offences.

And IMO there's sufficient evidence to allow the ECHR to conclude all of the above. The main pieces of evidence are 1) Knox's continued and unwavering insistence, from the night of the interrogation onwards, that prior to her first "confession/accusation" the police were accusing her of lying and that the police had evidence that she'd left Sollecito's apartment and met up with the killer to go to the girls' cottage; 2) the court testimony of police "interpreter" Donnino, who clearly stated that she'd used a personal example to suggest to Knox that she (Knox) might have suffered traumatic amnesia; 3) the words of Perugia Police Chief de Felice, who told journalists that Knox had "buckled" and "told the police what they (the police) knew to be correct".

So I think it should be straightforward for the ECHR to find that Knox was definitely being considered a criminal suspect well before she ever made her first verbal "confession/accusation" - the infamous "He did it! Patrick! He's bad!" outburst, and that this outburst was directly made in response to something that more-or-less amounted to a police instruction to say that she'd met with Lumumba and taken him to the girls' cottage where he'd attacked and killed Kercher.

But....... even in the (extremely unlikely IMO) event that the ECHR concludes that there's insufficiently strong evidence to allow for such a conclusion, it will then consider what happened (and didn't happened) once Knox made that first "confession/accusation". The indisputable fact that the police went away and typed up a statement for Knox to sign, all without informing her of her rights, is a slam-dunk indicator that Knox was denied her proper rights.

Thanks for this excellent post.

The only concerns I have are: 1) exactly when did these events happen relative to the seizing of the phone and 2) the lack of a record of the questions and statements prior to Amanda's first coerced false statement accusing Lumumba - a record that should have been kept by the police.

The best evidence is that a very high-ranking police officer, Edgardo Giobbi, testified in 2009 that Amanda and Raffaele were suspects before November 5, and that there was intent by the police to question them that day. While some posters have claimed that this was a subjective statement that might not be the whole truth, the ECHR would most likely take it at face value, because there are no objective contradictions to this part of Giobbi's testimony that could cast doubt on its credibility.

 

[Kaosium]

Seems to me that there's a good chance that Italy just rolls over on this whole thing and reaches a settlement with Knox. They already threw the police and prosecution under the bus, anyway.

Hi Diocletus! I've not been following this case in a while, what do you mean by that? I read that Mignini had been sanctioned for not allowing Raffaele a lawyer, but has there been more to it than that?

 

[Dougm]

It's not much simpler than this. And that after Mignini intervened, circa 2 am, acknowledging to Drew Griffin in 2010 that at the very least her rights kicked in once that first one was signed - what did Mignini do?

He proceeded with a second one! All typed up and presented to her to sign, STILL with no lawyer or independent interpreter - a full 3 3/4 hours after Mignini acknowledged to CNN that her rights were to have kicked in.

No manner of fudging can hide the second memorale.

But Mignini, Yummi and minions don't see it that way (although almost everyone else outside of Italian PLE disagree). They think that, no matter what happened in the middle of the night, Amanda's handwritten "memorale" of Nov 6 morning justifies it all. They argue that, even IF the two earlier statements are disallowed for various reasons, the third one, as well as her subsequent statements and testimony trying to explain why she said what she said, are all part of a continuing crime. The problem is, in order to accept this, we have to assume that there is no damage done from the initial violations of her rights, and that they get a "do over", legally if not figuratively.

I don't think the ECHR is going to buy that for a minute.

 

[Dougm]

I'd argue that it's even starker and simpler.

IMO, if the ECHR conclude that there's sufficient evidence to show that prior to Knox's first verbal "confession/accusation" in that 5th/6th Nov interrogation, the police were accusing Knox of having lied to them up to that point about her movements on the night of the murder, and that the police were telling Knox they had evidence that in fact (and contrary to her accounts to them up to that point) she'd met with "the killer" and taken him to the cottage, then the ECHR must conclude that by definition the police were considering Knox as a criminal suspect before she ever opened her mouth to accuse Lumumba. Whether the police suspected Knox of lying to them to protect the killer or they suspected Knox of personal direct involvement in the murder is immaterial. Both of those things are serious criminal offences.

And IMO there's sufficient evidence to allow the ECHR to conclude all of the above. The main pieces of evidence are 1) Knox's continued and unwavering insistence, from the night of the interrogation onwards, that prior to her first "confession/accusation" the police were accusing her of lying and that the police had evidence that she'd left Sollecito's apartment and met up with the killer to go to the girls' cottage; 2) the court testimony of police "interpreter" Donnino, who clearly stated that she'd used a personal example to suggest to Knox that she (Knox) might have suffered traumatic amnesia; 3) the words of Perugia Police Chief de Felice, who told journalists that Knox had "buckled" and "told the police what they (the police) knew to be correct".

So I think it should be straightforward for the ECHR to find that Knox was definitely being considered a criminal suspect well before she ever made her first verbal "confession/accusation" - the infamous "He did it! Patrick! He's bad!" outburst, and that this outburst was directly made in response to something that more-or-less amounted to a police instruction to say that she'd met with Lumumba and taken him to the girls' cottage where he'd attacked and killed Kercher.

But....... even in the (extremely unlikely IMO) event that the ECHR concludes that there's insufficiently strong evidence to allow for such a conclusion, it will then consider what happened (and didn't happened) once Knox made that first "confession/accusation". The indisputable fact that the police went away and typed up a statement for Knox to sign, all without informing her of her rights, is a slam-dunk indicator that Knox was denied her proper rights.

The problem the police and PM have is that their account does not match the factual evidence. They called her in, questioned her aggressively, accusing her of lying and knowing what happened to Meredith. They did this without giving her a lawyer and denying her access to any other person, including her mother. They did it in a language she did not understand well, and used an interpreter that was not just interpreting, but was coercing her into admissions. I don't see how the ECHR is going to accept some BS explanation that she didn't become a suspect until a certain hour of the morning, conveniently after they had gotten incriminating statements out of her. It's classic police misconduct.