Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

Hey!! Quit talking about me like that. After all I exhibit dangerous psychopathic traits such as liking parties and sex.

Some aspire to be president of the United States, others to 'The Oldest Swinger in Town.' Respect.

'Whatever gets you through the night it's all right' ~ John Lennon

 

[Vixen]

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.

You have a poor grasp of legal concepts. Imagine if some stranger asks to see your phone and you hand it over: no law has been broken.

As another example, there was a programme on tv about London Underground and these ticket inspectors were apprehending fare evaders, who were asked to accompany them to an interview room. Most meekly obliged and voluntarily allowed themselves to be questioned. The more hardened fare evaders just walked off. They knew the ticket inspector had no legal power to detain them or run after them. There was no obligation for the LU staff to tell fare evaders they did not have to accompany them to the interview room.

Likewise, do you now see, the police did not need to 'apply for a warrant' when Amanda voluntarily passed them her phone?

Talk about melodramatic. Sheesh.

 

[Vixen]

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.

Wow. Such imagination!

22:30 - 01:30 is hardly the early hours of the morning. In the UK police like to carry out dawn raids at 04:00 am, when most perps are fast asleep in their beds.

If 22:30 is OK to dine (as the pair were doing) then it's hardly an unsociable hour to pop along to the local police station, open 24/7, especially if driving there up to the door.

 

[Vixen]

I didn't know this.

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

Of course he doesn't. He just made it up.

 

[Vixen]

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):

See which of these nine steps can be isolated from the interrogation(s):
Quote:
The Reid Technique's nine steps of interrogation are:
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.
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.
Try to discourage the suspect from denying his or her guilt.
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.
Reinforce sincerity to ensure that the suspect is receptive.
The suspect will become quieter and listen. Move the theme discussion towards offering alternatives. If the suspect cries at this point, infer guilt.
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.
Lead the suspect to repeat the admission of guilt in front of witnesses and develop corroborating information to establish the validity of the confession.
Document the suspect's admission or confession and have him or her prepare a recorded statement (audio, video or written).​

Wrong, from step one onwards.

 

[Vixen]

Just like a Canadian. Speak English.

You say tomato, I say tomato.

 

[Vixen]

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.

Oh gosh, yes. Did Carlo Dalla Vedova in the ECHR claim remember to mention the '53-hour interrogations with changing tag teams of up to twelve cops every hour'?

 

[acbytesla]

Some aspire to be president of the United States, others to 'The Oldest Swinger in Town.' Respect.

'Whatever gets you through the night it's all right' ~ John Lennon

Now you're learning. There is hope for you yet Vixen.

 

[Kauffer]

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.

The other interesting thing about the 5:45 memo is that it doesn't say anything about Lumumba killing Kercher. The 1:45 has Knox saying that she confusedly remembered his killing her. That's rather a significant difference in detail don't you think?

 

[Vixen]

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.

AHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH "In 'LondonJohn's opinion' the ECHR 'will find in Amanda's favour'. LOL

Any statement will be signed off by the witness.

You walk into a copshop to report a Cabriolet crashing into a Saab. The cops will take your statement, get you to sign it.

According to 'LondonJohn' this is illegal and they should have got you a lawyer as they are arresting you. AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

 

[Kauffer]

Oh gosh, yes. Did Carlo Dalla Vedova in the ECHR claim remember to mention the '53-hour interrogations with changing tag teams of up to twelve cops every hour'?

The number of hours over the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th November amounts to 53.45. It appears on a number of documents.

As to the verification of the cop numbers, you should ask your pal Mig why the high tech recording equipment in the thoroughly modern questura was switched off in order to save money, yet he spent the equivalent of the price of an Umbrian apartment on a cartoon.

 

[bagels]

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?

The ECHR has taken her case.

 

[Kauffer]

AHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH "In 'LondonJohn's opinion' the ECHR 'will find in Amanda's favour'. LOL

Any statement will be signed off by the witness.

You walk into a copshop to report a Cabriolet crashing into a Saab. The cops will take your statement, get you to sign it.

According to 'LondonJohn' this is illegal and they shoud have got you a lawyer as they are arresting you. AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Funny, though that the Italian Supreme Court said she was a murder suspect, was being interrogated and should have had a lawyer.

 

[acbytesla]

Wow. Such imagination!

22:30 - 01:30 is hardly the early hours of the morning. In the UK police like to carry out dawn raids at 04:00 am, when most perps are fast asleep in their beds.

If 22:30 is OK to dine (as the pair were doing) then it's hardly an unsociable hour to pop along to the local police station, open 24/7, especially if driving there up to the door.

Are you logically impaired? If you're just looking for more information it can wait for the daytime. How many non-suspects do you actually think are called in at midnight?

 

[Vixen]

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."

I happened to catch a tv reconstruction of a very old case in which the perp got away with it as the detective who suspected him could not question him once the guy said he refused to answer any questions, thus he walked free as there was not enough evidence to prosecute.

Years later, a couple of cops decided to approach the guy under the ruse of having lost all the case notes and could he help them remember. To their amazement, he began bragging about how he'd slipped up to the galleys to take crack cocaine and then they had him! As he had just admitted to having been at the murder scene where a bar manageress had been brutally murdered. He was tried and convicted.

No lawyer present, no Miranda, when he spouted off, quite voluntarily.

As did Amanda Knox.

Bang!

 

[Numbers]

You have a poor grasp of legal concepts. Imagine if some stranger asks to see your phone and you hand it over: no law has been broken.

As another example, there was a programme on tv about London Underground and these ticket inspectors were apprehending fare evaders, who were asked to accompany them to an interview room. Most meekly obliged and voluntarily allowed themselves to be questioned. The more hardened fare evaders just walked off. They knew the ticket inspector had no legal power to detain them or run after them. There was no obligation for the LU staff to tell fare evaders they did not have to accompany them to the interview room.

Likewise, do you now see, the police did not need to 'apply for a warrant' when Amanda voluntarily passed them her phone?

Talk about melodramatic. Sheesh.

LOL! That could very well describe robbery/theft of a cell phone. It's even more "legal" if the stranger asks for your wallet and you hand it over!

Really, your posts are very entertaining.

It's not the giving of the phone to the police, it's when they keep it. This is called "seizure". It means that the police consider the phone or what is on it as evidence. In this case, it was interpreted (wrongfully and no doubt intentionally so) as evidence of a conspiracy by Amanda and Patrick Lumumba to murder Meredith. The phone was not returned to Amanda that day....was entered into evidence....and for all I know the police may still have it.

That seizure is one piece of objective evidence that Amanda was a suspect before she made her first coerced statement falsely accusing Lumumba.

I also never stated that the police needed to apply for a warrant. That is something you have made up. What I wrote is that the police did not have a warrant. Whether or not the police had a warrant is merely a point of information about process, and does not affect the fact that the seizure of the phone shows that Amanda was a suspect before her first statement.

Italian law allows for the police to seize objects and documents that they reasonably believe to be associated with a crime. In urgent cases, they do not need to apply for a warrant before the seizure (CPP Article 354), but they must notify the person whose objects have been seized with a written specification of the reasons for the seizure, and also send a copy to the prosecutor. The prosecutor then either confirms the seizure with a "reasoned decree" (warrant) or has the police return the seized objects (CPP Article 355).

So much for your post's display of knowledge about law, Italian style.

 

[Vixen]

Are you logically impaired? If you're just looking for more information it can wait for the daytime. How many non-suspects do you actually think are called in at midnight?

Raff had a phone call at about 10.00. That's hardly 'called in at midnight'.

 

[acbytesla]

Maybe someone can point me in the right direction. Seems to me that the Judge in the police callunia trial (or maybe it was someone else) juxtaposed the small number of pages of the Knox's interview with another police interview ...I think it was with Kokomani. Some ungodly difference.

 

[acbytesla]

Raff had a phone call at about 10.00. That's hardly 'called in at midnight'.

LOL. Do you actually think about the nonsense you post? Midnight is the very definition of middle of the night. It's one thing to take a phone call right before you go to bed, it's another to go in for a police interrogation at 11:30PM.

 

[Vixen]

The other interesting thing about the 5:45 memo is that it doesn't say anything about Lumumba killing Kercher. The 1:45 has Knox saying that she confusedly remembered his killing her. That's rather a significant difference in detail don't you think?

Not really. When people say, 'I think' or 'I imagine', those are superfluous to the meaning. Do you know what I mean? You know?

I think, when she says, 'I confusedly think/imagine in my head' these just signifiers of a liar, who chucks those phrases in just in case they are found out to be liars later.

In my head, I confusedly think that is what she was doing.