Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[quadraginta]

Oh, I agree. Nobody should be put under surveillance without proper procedures being followed. The problem is that we are. We all are. Wiretaps are sort of so-Seventies. There are other ways to follow people. The cell towers were brought into evidence and none of those people were properly consulted before that happened.

None of us know how much we are under surveillance even when making a routine cash withdrawal but we are.

Wiretapping is no more intrusive than that little mirror you see on your ATM or the camera in the convenience store watching you buy Hustler. (Not that I think you buy Hustler, of course, but if you did...)

I have to concur with HB here, at least from the perspective of an application of U.S. law.

The main ruler is "reasonable expectation of privacy", which boils down to whether or not the actions in question could be commonly perceived without extraordinary measures. This applies to such activities as the traffic surveillance you mentioned, or cameras in public venues. No special permission is required if the activities are in a public venue to begin with.

Cameras on private property; ATMs, stores, etc., are marginally more problematic, but generally relate to the wishes of the property owner and the expected usages of the space in question. This viewpoint gets sticky, as in the example of recording phone conversations with the consent of one or more parties involved, an issue which is treated differently by different states. E.g., in North Carolina a call can be recorded if any party involved consents, but in California all of them must or the recording is a violation of privacy. The individual states are somewhat schizophrenic, and pretty equally divided about this issue. In the absence of the informed consent of any participant a warrentless wiretap is basically illegal. (I say"basically" to avoid the minefield of Homeland Security and Patriot Act laws. We don't need to go there.)

The cell tower info you mention would be considered privileged, and would not be provided to LE without a warrant. It is viewed in the same light as any unwarranted search and seizure, and the surrender of that information by the telecom provider without such a warrant would not only be illegal, but could make that provider vulnerable to substantial civil damages as well. They are very sensitive about such issues, and their uniquely vulnerable position as custodians of citizens' private information.

Wiretapping is far more intrusive than a camera at an ATM or Quicki-Mart, simply because in the latter two instances you are placing yourself voluntarily in a public or functionally public venue. Your reasonable expectation of privacy is sacrificed by your own choice and actions. Even in these situations the records obtained by recording devices are not automatically public. They belong to the owner (or proprietor) of the property and equipment, and without free consent a warrant is still required for law enforcement to acquire them. It is not unusual for LE to obtain a warrant for such records even when the owner's consent is freely provided, just to avoid legal issues in the courtroom.

 

[katy_did]

Did the prosecution really claim that it was all arranged, agreed and organized beforehand it just went a little too far?

I was more talking in terms of what has been discussed on forums like this one, where all those issues (Amanda 'hating Meredith', their having planned the attack and so forth) certainly have been discussed. However in terms of what the prosecution claimed, yes, I think they suggested the attack was premeditated.

 

[katy_did]

Wait a mo. What would somebody do with access to her bank account? Transfer money? Where to? Surely that would be more traceable than anything. Whoever's bank account it was would have the police on them as quick as anything. If it wasn't Rudy's bank account I'm sure whoever did own it would be very grateful to him for all the attention. Even if somebody has managed to set the account up with fake details, they surely won't thank him for bringing the police down on it for a few thousand euro and in any case you'd have the same problem as the laptop of having to deal with people who might (or in this case would definitely) link him to the crime.

No, I think the interest would purely have been cash. I doubt it was more sophisticated than that.

 

[quadraginta]

In fact, there was discussion during the trial about whether or not someone had used Meredith's bank card the day after the murder. What had happened - as I think they brought an expert in to testify - is that the transaction had taken place the day before, but had only gone through a day later. But they didn't know that for certain until they verified it.
<snip>

As I said above, it wasn't until the trial that they knew her cards hadn't been used after the murder. I wonder how soon it was they even discovered her cards were missing? Can't have been that quickly, if they weren't even able to verify whether or not they were used until the trial.

<snip>

These two statements don't seem to follow, logically. Perhaps I am misreading your intent. In the first you suggest that LE didn't know the precise date of a transaction until they consulted an expert, and in the second you suggest that the expert's consultation did not occur until the trial was in progress, and no such advice was obtained until the expert testified in court.

Is that what you meant to say?

 

[katy_did]

These two statements don't seem to follow, logically. Perhaps I am misreading your intent. In the first you suggest that LE didn't know the precise date of a transaction until they consulted an expert, and in the second you suggest that the expert's consultation did not occur until the trial was in progress, and no such advice was obtained until the expert testified in court.

Is that what you meant to say?

Yes, they didn't know for sure when it occurred until the trial, as I recall. Presumably until the expert testimony it was assumed her cards had in fact been used after her death, since that was the date of the transaction.

ETA: From TJMK's site:

The director of a local bank, Paolo Fazi, testified that 20 euros ($28) had been withdrawn from Meredith Kercher’s account Nov. 2—the day her body was found.

But he also said that the bank accounting date does not necessarily reflect the actual date of the ATM withdrawal, and that only Kercher’s British bank would have that date.

Someone from the British bank is expected to testify in upcoming hearings. Knox and Sollecito are… accused of stealing Kercher’s credit cards, her cell phones and 300 euros ($420) in cash…

 

[Fulcanelli]

Do the Italian police routinely tap the phones of witnesses?

Yes, it's the culture for Italians to do so. They only do it though with those they think may know more then they're letting on.

 

[shuttlt]

In fact, there was discussion during the trial about whether or not someone had used Meredith's bank card the day after the murder. What had happened - as I think they brought an expert in to testify - is that the transaction had taken place the day before, but had only gone through a day later. But they didn't know that for certain until they verified it. So had Guede used her bank card the next day, for example, it's unlikely the police would have been onto it rapidly enough for it to have made any difference in terms of catching him.

Perhaps not, but assuming the police have no idea who they are looking for. Using bank cards is fraught with risk as, within a relatively short period of time, certainly enough to get the CCTV footage, the police will be on your trail.

Something else that just occurred to me is that since the locking of the bedroom door and so forth seems to have been an attempt to delay the discovery of the body - and since it was a public holiday, so many people would be away for the whole weekend - Guede should have had several days to try and use her cards. Perhaps the fact he didn't attempt to is because her body was discovered sooner than he anticipated.

I still think it would be dumb as all hell to use the cards unless he already exepected to be tied to the crime by other means. After the body has been discovered and the police have alerted the bank, it of course becomes more dangerous still.

As I said above, it wasn't until the trial that they knew her cards hadn't been used after the murder. I wonder how soon it was they even discovered her cards were missing? Can't have been that quickly, if they weren't even able to verify whether or not they were used until the trial.

This is news to me, but it's not really part of the case that I've been focused on.

I wouldn't have considered the phones having been taken in order to access her account, if a call hadn't been made to her bank. People do also sometimes store information like account numbers and branch details on their phones, even pin numbers if they're especially stupid. However, I think the more likely explanation for the phones having been taken is so that they wouldn't be heard ringing in her room, if one of her flatmates tried to call them. The locked door could then simply mean she was out, while if her phones were heard ringing it would be more cause for concern.

I agree with you.

 

[shuttlt]

Yes, they didn't know for sure when it occurred until the trial, as I recall. Presumably until the expert testimony it was assumed her cards had in fact been used after her death, since that was the date of the transaction.

ETA: From TJMK's site:

Surely they didn't wait until he was on the stand to ask him these questions? You can't surely mean that the first time the prosecution quiz their experts is on the stand, or shortly before? I must be misinterpreting you.

 

[katy_did]

Fulcanelli, you claimed my information about the front door needing to be closed with a key was 'ambiguous'. This is the post where I gave that information.

You asked about the front door needing to be locked with a key, Fiona. I don't remember ever reading in Knox's statement that it needed to be 'closed carefully', but anyway, here's the info I have on the front door. The first two come from Knox's statements, first from her e-mail:

here's the thing about the door to our house: its broken, in such a way that you have to use the keys to keep it closed. if we dont have the door locked, it is really easy for the wind to blow the door open, and so, my roommates and i always have the door locked unless we are running really quickley to bring the garbage out or to get something from the neighbors who live below us.

She states the same information again during her questioning in court:

LG: Precisely, did this door have a defect? What was the problem?

AK: It was defective, and if you didn't close it with the key, the door opened by itself. You couldn't just shut it, the wind would open it.

There's also an indication in the Micheli report that it's possible Guede could have been 'locked in' when Meredith arrived home. He considers the reasons Guede may not have immediately fled via the front door if he was already in the house when Meredith got home, and speculates that the door could have been 'locked from the inside'. Micheli had access to testimony about the broken door from Laura and Filomena (he makes reference to it earlier in the report) so it seems likely he would have known whether it was possible for the door to be locked from the inside in such a way that Guede could not have opened it; the only way I can think of that this could happen is with a key. Either Micheli believed that Guede could have been locked in, or his reasoning is sloppy here.

Dan O also found a very clear picture of the front door, presumably taken by the new tenants of the house (there's also a picture on one of the TJMK powerpoint presentations, but it's much less clear). It's a bit of an odd set-up, with the door handle in the middle of the door and the lock to the left. Unfortunately there's no picture of the inside of the door, so it's rather inconclusive.

The significance of this question is, of course, that if Guede were locked in, it would have made his motive for taking Meredith's keys very much stronger than the motives of the other two. He would have needed them in order to leave the cottage.

What is ambiguous about "if you didn't close it with the key, the door opened by itself"? Presumably you think the keys were used as a doorstop?

 

[Fulcanelli]

It's an interesting question, but to wiretap a person's phone who is not a suspect in a crime is a foreign concept to me. Certainly in Perugia you must seek permission to tap someone's phone, unless you believe Italian law does not afford reasonable privacy rights. Do you believe the police had a legal justification to tap other people's phones who they didn't suspect had anything to do with the crime?

They don't need to be formal suspects, simply suspected of knowing more then they are letting on or considered to have the potential to know more. However, the police can't simply set up a tap on a whim. They must get permission from a magistrate for each tap. I can't tell you exactly what the criteria are which must be fulfilled in order to grant that permission.

I also rather suspect, you have a rather inflated idea as to what your 'rights' to privacy actually are While there may be stricter rules governing the police in your country, you might be rather surprised as to what 'other' agencies can and do tap. In fact, 'technically', you actually don't make a single phone call without it being tapped, at least not in the US or UK or in calls to anyone in those countries. Same goes for email.

 

[katy_did]

Surely they didn't wait until he was on the stand to ask him these questions? You can't surely mean that the first time the prosecution quiz their experts is on the stand, or shortly before? I must be misinterpreting you.

My point is just that they obviously weren't certain at the time whether or not the cards had been used after her death, since the transaction did in fact go through the day after her death. So if Guede had in fact used the cards on that day, they would have been able to tell that he had used them when they checked, but it's not as if he'd have been surrounded by carabinieri as soon as he tried, especially if he'd used them before her body was found.

 

[quadraginta]

Yes, it's the culture for Italians to do so. They only do it though with those they think may know more then they're letting on.

This is not intrinsically different from American approaches. It is not needful for a person to be a suspect to obtain a wiretap authorization. "Probable cause" is required, but that isn't always the same thing. Usually, perhaps, but not exclusively.

Apparently the processes involved in obtaining wiretap authorization in Italy are more convoluted than even here in the states, since my understanding is that Mignini's terrible transgression was to have wiretapped a phone with a judge's consent.

Could you provide a little background on the circumstances in which a wiretap authorization is obtained there?

 

[Fulcanelli]

I'm relatively certain that the status of the room being locked or does little to alleviate the suspicion cast toward the people at the house at the time the Police arrived/the call was made. I'd venture to say that's pretty standard whether in the US, EU, or any other developed region.

Yes, police will always look with suspicion on those they find at the crime scene, especially those witnesses who were first on it. And indeed, many police forces pack a video cam and when arriving at a murder scene post a man to video the faces in the crowd of onlookers (on those occasions there is one). There is actually truth in the old maxim 'The murderer always returns to the scene of the crime'. Of course they don't 'always', but they very often do.

 

[shuttlt]

My point is just that they obviously weren't certain at the time whether or not the cards had been used after her death, since the transaction did in fact go through the day after her death. So if Guede had in fact used the cards on that day, they would have been able to tell that he had used them when they checked, but it's not as if he'd have been surrounded by carabinieri as soon as he tried, especially if he'd used them before her body was found.

In that case, I agree... though again, things might have been somewhat different if the card was used after the police had spoken t othe bank.

 

[katy_did]

Perhaps not, but assuming the police have no idea who they are looking for. Using bank cards is fraught with risk as, within a relatively short period of time, certainly enough to get the CCTV footage, the police will be on your trail.

Yes, it wouldn't be the wisest decision. Perhaps why he didn't try, especially once her body was discovered.

I still think it would be dumb as all hell to use the cards unless he already exepected to be tied to the crime by other means. After the body has been discovered and the police have alerted the bank, it of course becomes more dangerous still.

I think Guede probably did expect to be tied to the crime, and knew he'd left enough evidence at the scene to implicate himself. It's why he fled the country. His focus at the time was most likely getting enough money together to do that, rather than expecting to get away with the murder completely (he had weeks to think of the date story, after all; I doubt it immediately occurred to him at the time).

 

[Fulcanelli]

Ok, what I've said is being misconstrued. I never implied any illegal wiretapping here, just to be clear. My point is that in order to wiretap (and there is a difference from this as opposed to other forms of surveillance), you have to take affirmative steps in order to get permission to do so. You must have a legally justifiable reason and generally a magistrate or some form of authority must approve it. Aside from totalitarian states like North Korea, public officers do not get to just listen in on people's phone calls. There will be a paper trail.

The disagreement here is whether others had their phones listened in on. I'm merely stating because they weren't suspected, getting a legal wiretap for the nonsuspects would be more difficult, and thus i would not be surprised if they did not endure the same kind of surveillance as Amanda and Raffaele.

You ask what is so different about a wiretap, and all I can say is that, universally, tapping someone's phone is considered inherently more invasive than other forms of surveillance, thus requiring more justification in order for officers to be granted the right to do so.

The same in Italy, a magistrate's permission is required. And clearly, that was given in this case, otherwise the defence would have been screaming bloody murder about it, since it's illegal without it and nothing from illegal taps can be used as evidence.

 

[quadraginta]

My point is just that they obviously weren't certain at the time whether or not the cards had been used after her death, since the transaction did in fact go through the day after her death. So if Guede had in fact used the cards on that day, they would have been able to tell that he had used them when they checked, but it's not as if he'd have been surrounded by carabinieri as soon as he tried, especially if he'd used them before her body was found.

It appeared as if your point was that LE did not know when the cards had been used until the trial was in progress. Thank you for the correction.

Do we know how long after the murder it was before they determined the discrepancy?

 

[shuttlt]

Yes, it wouldn't be the wisest decision. Perhaps why he didn't try, especially once her body was discovered.

I think Guede probably did expect to be tied to the crime, and knew he'd left enough evidence at the scene to implicate himself. It's why he fled the country. His focus at the time was most likely getting enough money together to do that, rather than expecting to get away with the murder completely (he had weeks to think of the date story, after all; I doubt it immediately occurred to him at the time).

If he expected to be tied to the crime scene then there would have been no additional risk in taking the laptops, ipod etc... I guess he could have made the judgement about how likely he already was to be identified after he had already left the scene.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Fulcanelli, you claimed my information about the front door needing to be closed with a key was 'ambiguous'. This is the post where I gave that information.

And I will tell you exactly the same thing I told you when you posted it the first time. All it demonstrates and this we have always known (there is nothing new here) that the door often had to be locked with a key from the OUTSIDE, when going OUTSIDE. It was not stated that they also had to lock it with a key from 'inside' when going inside. Inside, they had access to the latch. And while the latch may have had it's automatic function broken, where it no longer clicked locked simply by the door being pulled shut, it does not therefore follow that it had to have a key used from the inside in order to close the door from the inside. And since nobody has given testimony that was the case then we cannot accept it as being so.

 

[Fulcanelli]

My point is just that they obviously weren't certain at the time whether or not the cards had been used after her death, since the transaction did in fact go through the day after her death. So if Guede had in fact used the cards on that day, they would have been able to tell that he had used them when they checked, but it's not as if he'd have been surrounded by carabinieri as soon as he tried, especially if he'd used them before her body was found.

But they'd have still led to him eventually. They leave a trail.

If he had sold the laptops and phones he wouldn't have been surrounded by carabinieri the moment he sold them either. So again, what's the difference then between the credit cards and the laptops/phones?