Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fulcanelli]

Yeah.

A jury trial in Italy is called a Corte d'Assise. It consists of 2 professional judges and 6 "lay judges" selected from the populace. The lay judges have no legal or jurisprudential training. They serve essentially the same function as jurors, but in cases with widespread media attention there is no function analogous to sequestration as in the UK and US. These 'lay judges' are chosen without consultation or input from the defense, therefore there is no safeguard against jury tampering or jury poisoning. In the case of a deadlock, the lead judge gets an extra vote to break the tie.

Italian legislation may proclaim "Presumption of Innocence," but it frankly rings hollow when the prosecutor is allowed to pillory the defendant in the press, the 'lay judges' are allowed to read that press, irrelevant issues such as the defendant's sex life are allowed in court in attempts to malign their character, and the prosecution is allowed to make allegations in closing which are unsupported by the evidence in review.

In America, witnesses are indeed afforded attorneys during questioning if they ask for one, and they cannot be held against their will unless the police charge them with a crime. Such is obviously not the case in Italy, where witnesses can be held for up to 48 hours before being charged.

Other posters have already addressed the rest of the points in your list there.

I've read and re-read the facts of this case many times in this thread and in many other places over the past several months, and feel I have given a lot of consideration to this case for somebody not directly affected by its outcome. The facts are the facts and they've been amply covered already.

I'm not saying Amanda Knox is innocent or guilty. For all the stuff I've read, I still can't make heads or tails of this case. It's frankly very confusing for such a high profile case. This is probably due to all the speculation, public debate and loads of misinformation which has been reported through the media on both sides of the verdict.

As I said, I have my opinion and you are allowed yours. I have no desire to engage you any further on this topic. Thanks for your reply!

Like I said, they are judges not jury. Since when are defences ever allowed to choose or reject their judges? Do lawyers in the US choose which judges their going to have so as to rule out 'judge tampering'? If not, why not? And since the purpose of jury tampering is to get the accused off, then surely from your point of view that happening in Italy would be a bonus for Amanda and Raffaele wouldn't it? No, the judges are not allowed to read the press reports. They are all on oath not to. And should it ever emerge that any judges did, that is grounds for having the case dismissed. It seems your main complaint, is that they don't do it the same way as you Americans do.

Oh I see, you concede that they have the presumption of innocence, you just don't believe them. Perhaps then you should have phrased it that way in your little list. Of course, your your opinion is supported neither by the facts nor the actual reality. For surely, wouldn't reality reflect that in the prison population per capita which is actually massively lower then that in the US? The conviction rate in Italy is also much lower. How can that possibly be, in a nation that presumes guilt?

Amanda could have asked for a lawyer, did you know that? But if she had, they'd have made her a suspect.

No, witnesses can't be held up to 48 hours without being charged. They can be held up to a year without being charged and that was the case with Raffaele and Amanda, they were charged after a year. It's the ARREST that has to be FORMALISED within 48 hours. The problem is, being charged isn't quite the same as in our system, nor is being arrested. You are in effect comparing apples and pairs.

 

[Fulcanelli]

No, I was referring to Fiona's rather worn mantra of "I see no evidence of absence" - in this case, the absence of controls run by Stefanoni - identical (equally unorthodox) tests run concurrently on other items, ideally taken from the same location.

Perhaps you both DO actually need the rules of logic explained.

I cannot PROVE that a fusion-reactor powered by banana skins is impossible. The onus is on someone who claims otherwise to prove that it IS.

We are still waiting for your evidence that these negative controls are a) legally required and b) weren't run.

PS: 'Because I say so' isn't evidence

 

[shuttlt]

If Amanda had been so thoroughly questioned for days, and all she had to do is repeat the truth, wouldn't that make her *more* familiar with and sure of the truth? Not more confusion, surely. The "harsh" questioning only lasted a couple hours before she told her story about Lumumba to deflect the attention from herself.

I think everybody here agrees the harsh questioning lasted only a couple of hours at most.

 

[Fulcanelli]

The police asked Amanda to visualize in her mind what might have happened the night of the crime.

No they didn't!

 

[Bruce Fischer]

From Mary_H's lawyerly blog....


http://www.grahamlawyerblog.com/tag/giuliano-mignini/

I wonder how he managed to become so convinced of their innocence while the trial was still pending.

Did it honestly take you until December 4, 2009 to make up your mind whether they were innocent or guilty?

 

[Fulcanelli]

The question I keep wondering, is 'why' the police kept telling Amanda to 'remember'. The only reason I can think of, is that they were asking her straight questions and instead of answering yes or no, or with some detailed answer, she instead was answering with 'I don't remember'. It's probably the most common answer given by criminals to police and the answer they like least, because they know it's bunk. Police are never going to let you get away with 'I can't remember', especially when you are being asked questions about events that happened not years ago, months ago or even weeks ago, but only several days ago. So, it's therefore clear they were asking her to remember because she kept answering 'I can't remember' to their questions.

 

[Dan O.]

Do any of those studies deal with people confessing based on false memories induced by the questioning? I don't mean to use this question as a way of dismissing the studies, I am curious.

Yes, one posted earlier by kestrel used a followup test to determine if the participant believed that they committed the act. Some actually remembered doing it.

 

[bucketoftea]

I can't understand why, seriously, police would ask anyone to "imagine" any event. Now, what would be the point? By inviting her to make something up, they would be opening the door to who knows what she might say? That is a pose for Mary. If you are thinking the police are crooked, asking to imagine wouldn't necessarily be helpful to them. If they are so corrupt and sadistic (as you've implied) why didn't they fake a better story? A full confession? Your version just doesn't make sense on so many levels.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I can't understand why, seriously, police would ask anyone to "imagine" any event. Now, what would be the point? By inviting her to make something up, they would be opening the door to who knows what she might say? That is a pose for Mary. If you are thinking the police are crooked, asking to imagine wouldn't necessarily be helpful to them. If they are so corrupt and sadistic (as you've implied) why didn't they fake a better story? A full confession? Your version just doesn't make sense on so many levels.

Despite the fact that Amanda herself admitted on the stand in the trial that she hadn't been asked to 'imagine' anything. It's just FOA propaganda.

 

[Dan O.]

We are still waiting for your evidence that these negative controls are a) legally required and b) weren't run.

The negative controls are scientifically required. Without negative controls it is not possible to establish the rate of contamination and therefore it is not possible to rule out contamination as a factor in the result. If the Italian legal system doesn't require negative controls then the Italian legal system is a joke.

PS: 'Because I say so' isn't evidence

That's funny. Aren't you taking "because I said so" as your proof that there were negative controls. Miss 'high school biology student' Stefanoni may not have even known what a negative control was before the defense lawyers asked. She thought all the controls that were necessary were done by the manufacturers of the testing kits.

 

[Kestrel]

Yes, one posted earlier by kestrel used a followup test to determine if the participant believed that they committed the act. Some actually remembered doing it.

These studies were discussed in Interviewing suspects: Practice, science, and future directions.

 

[Kestrel]

I can't understand why, seriously, police would ask anyone to "imagine" any event. Now, what would be the point? By inviting her to make something up, they would be opening the door to who knows what she might say? That is a pose for Mary. If you are thinking the police are crooked, asking to imagine wouldn't necessarily be helpful to them. If they are so corrupt and sadistic (as you've implied) why didn't they fake a better story? A full confession? Your version just doesn't make sense on so many levels.

Witnesses are interviewed to gather information about the crime. The goal of interrogating a suspect is to elicit statements that can be used to prove the suspect is guilty.

The article I linked in my last post gives a good overview of how the tactics used in interrogation can put innocent people at risk. I would also suggest watching this video, where a lawyer explains why even innocent people should not talk to the police.




BTW - Welcome to JREF.

 

[shuttlt]

These studies were discussed in Interviewing suspects: Practice, science, and future directions.

Thanks, I will give that a read.

 

[Alt+F4]

Studies have already been cited to show that a significant percentage of people without extenuating stress factors will readily confess to have done something that they didn't do when they are presented with evidence that they did.

But I thought neither Amanda or Raffaele confessed to anything?

 

[Dan O.]

I don't believe for a moment that there weren't controls, I do believe that some keeep recycling this nonsense. Nonsense in large part because the defense chose to not send an agent to observe the testing. (this is done all the time) Unfortunately defenders often choose not to attend themselves or send an agent so that they can cry about the testing. Just gamesmanship rubbish. Happens all the time.

There are many types of controls. What we are talking about are the negative controls that are processed at the same time and with the same parameters as the crime scene samples. These controls would leave an evidence trail just like the samples in the form of lab records and results of the test. All it would take to show that these negative controls were run would be to produce the FSA files and the evidence log.

If Amanda had been so thoroughly questioned for days, and all she had to do is repeat the truth, wouldn't that make her *more* familiar with and sure of the truth? Not more confusion, surely. The "harsh" questioning only lasted a couple hours before she told her story about Lumumba to deflect the attention from herself.

The "harsh questioning" doesn't need to last for hours. The police simply lied to her to say they had proof that her story was false. They only need to keep her off balance for a short time to start down the path of make believe. They were even nice enough to provide Amanda with an excuse for why she doesn't remember that evening.

The police were recording everything from interrogations, to phone calls to conversations between the kids in the environment of the police station on the 2nd. There is no reason to believe that they wouldn't record the interrogations on the 5th & 6th. That these recordings are not available tells a lot about what the police knew they were doing in those interrogations.

 

[Fulcanelli]

The negative controls are scientifically required. Without negative controls it is not possible to establish the rate of contamination and therefore it is not possible to rule out contamination as a factor in the result. If the Italian legal system doesn't require negative controls then the Italian legal system is a joke.




That's funny. Aren't you taking "because I said so" as your proof that there were negative controls. Miss 'high school biology student' Stefanoni may not have even known what a negative control was before the defense lawyers asked. She thought all the controls that were necessary were done by the manufacturers of the testing kits.

Different labs have different protocols. There is no universal.

Isn't it the one making the allegations who's supposed to provide the evidence? If you are alleging there were no negative controls, then it's you who needs to evidence that.

 

[Dan O.]

But I thought neither Amanda or Raffaele confessed to anything?

That's right. Amanda didn't confess. She for a brief time accepted the lies that the police were feeding her and filled in what could have been.

Raffaele didn't admit anything but his words were twisted out of context to claim he did.

 

[shuttlt]

There are many types of controls. What we are talking about are the negative controls that are processed at the same time and with the same parameters as the crime scene samples. These controls would leave an evidence trail just like the samples in the form of lab records and results of the test. All it would take to show that these negative controls were run would be to produce the FSA files and the evidence log.

This argument just takes us back to the black hole of whether and when the defence made what requests and what response they were met with. The prosecution have no more obligation to provide this information to the outside world than Bruce, or Charlie, or Dr Waterbury are obliged to hadn over their evidence.

The "harsh questioning" doesn't need to last for hours. The police simply lied to her to say they had proof that her story was false.

Did Raffaele not say that their previous story was ********?

The police were recording everything from interrogations, to phone calls to conversations between the kids in the environment of the police station on the 2nd. There is no reason to believe that they wouldn't record the interrogations on the 5th & 6th.

All those other things were the results of electronic surveillance, they were necessarily recorded. It's hard to imagine the police wiretapping half the witnesses, as seems to have happened in this case, and then sitting there with a pad of paper in case somebody makes a call and then despirately trying to make notes on three calls at the same time. The interrogation is different. Perhaps it was recorded, but no proof has been offered.

That these recordings are not available tells a lot about what the police knew they were doing in those interrogations.

If they exist.

 

[shuttlt]

Raffaele didn't admit anything but his words were twisted out of context to claim he did.

What did his "********" statement mean?

 

[shuttlt]

Dan O.

http://www.corriere.it/cronache/07_novembre_07/meredith_verbali_sarzanini.shtml

Apologies for the Google Translate:

The lies of her boyfriend

The phone records examined by the postal police proved crucial to reconstruct the movements of the boys. And to deny what had hitherto said. The first to admit that he had "told a lot of crap" and promptly. The young man is summoned to the police station at 22:40 on 5 November, two nights ago. After the discovery of the corpse of Meredith had already been questioned, but told her not knowing what had happened: "I was out with Amanda," it was justified. Now understand that the situation has changed. And so he decided to change his or her own version. The minutes of Raffaele Sollecito begins at 22:40 on Tuesday. "I've known Amanda for two weeks. From the evening when I met her began to sleep in my house. On November 1 I woke up around 11, I had breakfast with Amanda and then she left and I went back to bed. I reached his house around 13-14. There was also Meredith came out hurriedly towards the 16 without saying where he went. Amanda and I went downtown around 18 but can not remember what we did. We stayed downtown until 20:30 or 21. I to 21 are left alone at home, while Amanda said she would go to the pub Le Chic because she wanted to meet his friends. At this point we said goodbye. I went home, I got high, had dinner, but I do not remember what I ate. Around 23 fixed on the user called me at home my father. I remember Amanda was not back yet. I navigated to the computer for two hours after the call from my father and I only stopped when Amanda came back, presumably to the 1. Do not remember as if it were dressed and was dressed the same way as when we said goodbye before dinner. I do not remember if we consumed that night intercourse. The next morning we woke up around 10 and she said she wanted to go home to shower and change clothes. In fact came out about 10.30 and I went back to sleep. When Amanda also took out an empty envelope, saying that would have served to put dirty clothes. At about 11:30 she returned home and I remember that he had changed clothes. He was carrying the usual bag. At this point, according Sollecito, Amanda said she would be worried. "He told me - says the young - that when she arrived at his house found the door wide open and blood stains in the bathroom small. He asked if it seemed strange. I answered yes and I advised him to call her friends. She said he phoned Filomena (another girl who lives in house murder ed), and said that Meredith did not answer. "

The return home

The two go together in the apartment. And so I urge reconstructs those moments: "She opened the door with the keys and I entered. I noticed that Filomena's door was wide open with the windows down and the room a mess. Amanda's door was open and had everything in order instead. Then I went towards Meredith's door and saw it was locked. First I looked to see if it was true what Amanda had told me the blood in the bathroom and I noticed drops of blood on the sink, while on the mat there was something strange, a sort of mixed water and blood, while the rest of the bathroom was clean .... The rest was in order. Just then Amanda came into the big bathroom and came out scared and hugged me and told me that before, when he took a shower, he saw that instead of feces in the water was now clean. I wondered what was happening and I went out to see if I could climb on the window of Meredith ... I tried to break down the door but I could not and then I decided to call my sister and I recommended to her because he is a lieutenant in the carabinieri. He told me to call 112, but in the meantime the police arrived by post. In the previous report I have referred a lot of crap because she had convinced me of his version of events and I did not think the inconsistencies. "

There is a lot of direct speech there. Has it been debunked somewhere that I am unaware of? In his statement he seems to be saying that she went out for a few hours on the night of the murder and he says she convinced him to tell a ******** story that he now realizes is false. The time of his call from his father and subsequent computer activity is a problem as well, I think.