Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[quadraginta]

Why, is that's how it's done in America is it? US police assign lawyers to witnesses do they?

Halides1 was a little confused. Witnesses in the U.S. are entitled to all the legal advice they can afford, and are certainly entitled to have such advice at hand while being questioned as witnesses. If they can afford it. No "right" to a state provided attorney, which I suspect was his implication, attaches until an actual arrest is made.

ETA: And that is still only if they can prove that they can't afford it. They can go bankrupt defending themselves, and then get a court appointed attorney.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Garofano on the interrogations

Halides1 was a little confused. Witnesses in the U.S. are entitled to all the legal advice they can afford, and are certainly entitled to have such advice at hand while being questioned as witnesses. If they can afford it. No "right" to a state provided attorney, which I suspect was his implication, attaches until an actual arrest is made.

ETA: And that is still only if they can prove that they can't afford it. They can go bankrupt defending themselves, and then get a court appointed attorney.

Quadraginta,

In one respect my position with respect to the interrogations is similar to Colonel Garofano's position. It is debatable whether or not the police should have been calling AK and RS witnesses as of the beginning of their interviews on 5 November, when they were already suspects in fact but not in name.

Chris

 

[Kestrel]

You seem really fond of sweating out the truth. Locking people up in little rooms, keeping them up all night, lying to them, yelling and screaming at them, perhaps tossing in a few well place blows. Show them who is boss, make them really afraid of you, let them know it will not stop unless they say what you want. Do you really believe this is the best way to find the truth?

Hardly, since this little fantasy of your never happened. The police were done with Amanda by 1:45...that's 'all night' is it?

Yet again you ignore the second interrogation by the PM that ended at 5:45 AM.

And perhaps also Kestrel could kindly explain to us all how police 'should' go about catching criminals and solving cases, since questioning witnesses and suspects is clearly not allowed in his world.

Strawman argument. I am not against the police interviewing witnesses and suspects, I am against allowing them to sweat or beat a confession out of someone who is denied legal advice.

 

[Kestrel]

You had assumed that FOA pays people. Since no one is paying them, it is unclear how they could be paying anyone else. Can you clarify this point?

I included the whole quote for the sake of completeness (context). If you don't agree with it, that's fine; just ignore it. The quote is found under a subheading "Who we are" at http://www.friendsofamanda.org/home_eng.html

The folks who believe that Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy conspired to murder Meredith clearly believe that anyone who doesn't support their conspiracy theory is being paid to cover up the conspiracy.

 

[quadraginta]

Quadraginta,

In one respect my position with respect to the interrogations is similar to Colonel Garofano's position. It is debatable whether or not the police should have been calling AK and RS witnesses as of the beginning of their interviews on 5 November, when they were already suspects in fact but not in name.

Chris

Yes. This would have made their statements then admissible in court even under Italian law. I imagine that would have been hugely beneficial to their case.

 

[stilicho]

Quadraginta,

In one respect my position with respect to the interrogations is similar to Colonel Garofano's position. It is debatable whether or not the police should have been calling AK and RS witnesses as of the beginning of their interviews on 5 November, when they were already suspects in fact but not in name.

Chris

But the status of suspect as opposed to witness is a legal distinction in Italy and not at the whim of the authorities as it is in North America. Why do we go around and around in circles on this and the Miranda-style issues?

The sly innuendo is that somehow RS and AK would not have to confirm their alibis, or would never have been asked questions about the cottage where AK lived and the apartment where RS lived, in the US. That's absurd.

Worse yet, we know from AK's 04 NOV 2007 email that she knew she was unable to leave Italy before volunteering to go down to the Questura. That means her family also knew. By that time, both of the witnesses-cum-suspects should have "lawyered up".

It's nitpicky to argue that they were denied rights because they were too stupid to understand why the police still wanted to interview them. Even with legal representation they still made statements that shouldn't have been made. Did it matter that they didn't have lawyers with them on the afternoon of 02 NOV 2007?

 

[stilicho]

The folks who believe that Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy conspired to murder Meredith clearly believe that anyone who doesn't support their conspiracy theory is being paid to cover up the conspiracy.

I don't know how we got the idea that FOA was paying anyone. I explained that the family was able to purchases the services of David Marriott's PR firm but couldn't spring for a single scientist to hop down to the lab. There is nothing I've seen to suggest that Marriott is sending his bills to FOA.

 

[stilicho]

I am not against the police interviewing witnesses and suspects, I am against allowing them to sweat or beat a confession out of someone who is denied legal advice.

Straw Man upon Straw Man.

I don't think any of us believe that cops should (or even can) beat confessions out of people. Hands up, anyone who does believe this.

Remember, AK never confessed to anything. She told the cops that her boss murdered Meredith. So they went to his house and basically dragged him out of bed because of what she'd said about him.

But that was the cops' fault too, right?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Yet again you ignore the second interrogation by the PM that ended at 5:45 AM.

And yet again you ignore that it wasn't an interrogation, it was a voluntary statement and it only happened because Amanda herself INSISTED on it. As far as the police were concerned they were done with her at 1:45 am. Amanda could have chosen to go to sleep. If she was up all night because she herself insisted on being heard again, then it's her own fault! Yet still you twist and twist.

Strawman argument. I am not against the police interviewing witnesses and suspects, I am against allowing them to sweat or beat a confession out of someone who is denied legal advice.

It's hardly a straw man. You insist on her being given rights she wouldn't even get in her own country. We call that hypocrisy in my neck of the woods.

She was not beaten!

She was not sweated...she was questioned.

She was not 'denied' legal advice. Just as in your own country, the police are not obliged to appoint lawyers to witnesses. However, she could have demanded she have a lawyer present...she did not, HER choice.

 

[Fulcanelli]

The folks who believe that Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy conspired to murder Meredith clearly believe that anyone who doesn't support their conspiracy theory is being paid to cover up the conspiracy.

Straw man. WHO has claimed they "conspired to murder Meredith"?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Halides1 was a little confused. Witnesses in the U.S. are entitled to all the legal advice they can afford, and are certainly entitled to have such advice at hand while being questioned as witnesses. If they can afford it. No "right" to a state provided attorney, which I suspect was his implication, attaches until an actual arrest is made.

ETA: And that is still only if they can prove that they can't afford it. They can go bankrupt defending themselves, and then get a court appointed attorney.

They also have to make an official request for a lawyer in the first place...the old cliched line repeated in countless crime movies and TV shows 'I'm not saying another word until I speak to my lawyer!'.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I doubt Chris has objections to properly collected DNA evidence processed in a lab that followed scientifically sound protocols. I also doubt he objects to witness testimony conducted in the open with legal advice available.

You seem really fond of sweating out the truth. Locking people up in little rooms, keeping them up all night, lying to them, yelling and screaming at them, perhaps tossing in a few well place blows. Show them who is boss, make them really afraid of you, let them know it will not stop unless they say what you want. Do you really believe this is the best way to find the truth?

Scientific experiments have proved it is not.

Evidence that the DNA evidence was processed in a lab not following scientifically sound protocols? Evidence that legal advice was not available to Amanda/Raffaele at the time they made their witness statements?

Evidence that Amanda and/or Raffaele were kept up all night? Evidence of the well-placed blows (yes, the ones Amanda says didn't happen - this has been discussed)?

Obfuscate much?

 

[shuttlt]

Yet again you ignore the second interrogation by the PM that ended at 5:45 AM.

What does the second interrogation/voluntary statement matter? She'd already said all the important stuff before 1:45am.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

not good advice

I suppose it is good advice but I was thinking about RS-as-innocent. The police had Meredith's English friends and her other roommates down at the Questura, too. None of them seemed to experience any difficulties when talking to the police without legal representation. Two of those at the cottage even worked for lawyers and neither of them saw any reason to "lawyer up".

Now, on the other hand, if we think about RS-as-guilty, then absolutely I wouldn't have gone anywhere near the Questura without being taken there in custody and with a lawyer in tow. To use HB's drug dealer example, a lot of those thusly employed have their lawyer's number on speed dial.

Stilicho,

If your advice is that one should not to bother with a lawyer unless one is guilty, then that is questionable advice.

The Psychology of Confessions, A Review of the Literature and Issues
Saul M. Kassin and Gisli H. Gudjonsson
Psychological Science in the Public Interest
Volume 5, number 2, November 2004

Chris

 

[Kestrel]

And yet again you ignore that it wasn't an interrogation, it was a voluntary statement and it only happened because Amanda herself INSISTED on it. As far as the police were concerned they were done with her at 1:45 am. Amanda could have chosen to go to sleep. If she was up all night because she herself insisted on being heard again, then it's her own fault! Yet still you twist and twist.

The Supreme Court ruling of 21 April 2008 rules on three documents. The police interview that ended at 1:45 AM, the interrogation by the prosecuting authority that ended at 5:54 AM and the one Amanda later wrote on her own in English. The first could only be used against other defendants, the second could not be used at all, and the third was allowed.

Like these principles, the statements made by AMK at 1.45, 6 November 2007, the outcome of which the transcript was suspended and she was made available to the prosecuting authority, emerging evidence against him, are usable only contra alios, while "spontaneous declarations" of 5.54 hours are not used or charged against the suspect or other persons accused of complicity in the same offense, because without the guarantees made by the defense of a person had already formally assumed the role of suspect.

In contrast, the memoir written in English by K. and translated into Italian and full utilization under Article. 237 cpp, since it is derived from asking document, which was the spontaneous author material for defensive purposes. The provision in question allows evidence of attaching importance to document not only in itself and for its representative content, but also by virtue of the special bond that ties him to the suspect (or defendant), as well illustrate the review of eligibility that the court is required to operate.

(emphasis added)

Even in the ugly Google translation, it's clear that there are three documents.

BTW - The 5:54 AM document was hand written by Mignini.

 

[Kestrel]

Stilicho,

IF your advice is that one should not to bother with a lawyer unless one is guilty, then that is questionable advice.

If Stilicho believes that innocent people don't need lawyers when talking to the police, he clearly hasn't watched the video I posted earlier in this thread.

 

[shuttlt]

Even in the ugly Google translation, it's clear that there are three documents. The 5:54 AM document was hand written by Mignini.

Why are we arguing about this? What is the significance of it being written by Mignini? Isn't this two year old news?

 

[Fulcanelli]

[quote-"Kestrel"]Even in the ugly Google translation, it's clear that there are three documents.

BTW - The 5:54 AM document was hand written by Mignini.[/quote]

Yes, there were three statements. We knew that.

I've seen no statement anywhere that the document was handwritten by Mignini (perhaps you could provide it) but whoever wrote it, be it Mignini, an assistant to Mignini or Amanda, it was written on the insistence of Amanda Knox herself and signed by her. And she has never denied that she actually said what was contained therein.

So...what's your point?

 

[tsig]

Yet again you ignore the second interrogation by the PM that ended at 5:45 AM.



Strawman argument. I am not against the police interviewing witnesses and suspects, I am against allowing them to sweat or beat a confession out of someone who is denied legal advice.

Well, so am I. Now prove it happened to Amanda.

 

[tsig]

The folks who believe that Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy conspired to murder Meredith clearly believe that anyone who doesn't support their conspiracy theory is being paid to cover up the conspiracy.

Wrong. Don't give up your day job your mind reading skills are nil.