Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Bruce Fischer]

Cite? There were no recordings, remember.

Amanda stated this during her court testimony. That was recorded.

 

[tsig]

The story, Juror, is that when they took Amanda into the interrogation room, she was "only a witness," and it is not required that witnesses' statements be recorded. Allegedly, according to the police, once she incriminated herself, she became a suspect and the interrogation was halted.

You wrote: "I would think the police would have insisted on recording the interrogation for both documentation of evidence purposes and protect themselves from potential accusations of mischief later."

Yes, that is the most reasonable expectation. The fact that they have no fear of those accusations (which have already been made) says quite a bit about the closed situation over there.

I'm sure that if you ran the Italian Justice System they would record the crimes before they happened.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

The story, Juror, is that when they took Amanda into the interrogation room, she was "only a witness," and it is not required that witnesses' statements be recorded. Allegedly, according to the police, once she incriminated herself, she became a suspect and the interrogation was halted.

You wrote: "I would think the police would have insisted on recording the interrogation for both documentation of evidence purposes and protect themselves from potential accusations of mischief later."

Yes, that is the most reasonable expectation. The fact that they have no fear of those accusations (which have already been made) says quite a bit about the closed situation over there.

Actually, if either of you had bothered to actually read this thread, you'd find that the story is:

The interviews with witnesses are protected under Italian law. Thus, they cannot be obtained by either side without showing just cause and are not able to be entered as evidence into the case if the suspect later becomes a witness.

In other words, witnesses have more protections in Italy than they do here in the U.S..

As soon as Amanda told her lie that placed her in the house while Patrick was raping/murdering Meredith, she became suspected of being an accomplice. At this point, the interview was ended and Amanda was formally placed under arrest and became a suspect.

This is why her interview was not entered into evidence, nor released to the public record, while her "gift" statement from a few hours later was admissable/released to the public.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Can you cite where she was told it would be better for her to not have an attorney?

Amanda stated this during her court testimony.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Amanda stated this during her court testimony. That was recorded.

Bruce, Bruce, Bruce. That is not a cite.

Do you have a cite?

 

[tsig]

I thought she was the ringleader.

Why would you think that?

 

[Juror]

The story, Juror, is that when they took Amanda into the interrogation room, she was "only a witness," and it is not required that witnesses' statements be recorded. Allegedly, according to the police, once she incriminated herself, she became a suspect and the interrogation was halted.

You wrote: "I would think the police would have insisted on recording the interrogation for both documentation of evidence purposes and protect themselves from potential accusations of mischief later."

Yes, that is the most reasonable expectation. The fact that they have no fear of those accusations (which have already been made) says quite a bit about the closed situation over there.

I understand the not required bit but if I put myself in the position of the police, I would insist a middle of the night interrogation of some foreign national be taped to protect myself from accusations later whether required or not. Documentation is a good thing I figure.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Bruce, Bruce, Bruce. That is not a cite.

Do you have a cite?

Amanda stated this in her court testimony. If you haven't read the text or listened to Amanda's court testimony then you have not properly researched this case.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_qaiMmfwk0&feature=player_embedded#!

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Why would you think that?

Mignini stated this in court.

 

[tsig]

I understand the not required bit but if I put myself[in the position of the police, I would insist a middle of the night interrogation of some foreign national be taped to protect myself from accusations later whether required or not. Documentation is a good thing I figure.

Foreign nationals should get special treatment?

 

[Juror]

Foreign nationals should get special treatment?

Let me rephrase - I would insist on all interrogations being taped to both document what was said and the context of such and also to protect myself from potential false accusations later. I really don't see the downside of the police doing this. Do you?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Let me rephrase - I would insist on all interrogations being taped to both document what was said and the context of such and also to protect myself from potential false accusations later. I really don't see the downside of the police doing this. Do you?

[/facepalm]

The interrogation was taped. But it was not allowed to be released due to Italian law protecting witnesses. Again, this is all over the thread if you would take the time to, ya know, do a bit of research.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Amanda stated this in her court testimony. If you haven't read the text or listened to Amanda's court testimony then you have not properly researched this case.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_qaiMmfwk0&feature=player_embedded#!

I've read the testimony

This was because regardless of what I've read/seen, it is always useful to have a cite when an argument new to this thread is presented.

 

[HumanityBlues]

[/facepalm]

The interrogation was taped. But it was not allowed to be released due to Italian law protecting witnesses. Again, this is all over the thread if you would take the time to, ya know, do a bit of research.

Bob, you need to consult your patsy brigade because they actually deny it was taped.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Bob, you need to consult your patsy brigade because they actually deny it was taped.

Knock off the name calling already, ok?


That goes for everyone.

 

[Mary_H]

knock off the name calling already, ok?


that goes for everyone.

lol!

 

[BobTheDonkey]

they actually deny it was taped.

That may well be.

Regardless, the tape would not have been eligible to be released, whether it exists or not - so it's a null argument.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

lol! :d

Ahh, I see.

You think it's funny because I called Halides a liar.


See, here's the difference. Do you have evidence that there's a "patsy brigade" around here?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

[/facepalm]

The interrogation was taped. But it was not allowed to be released due to Italian law protecting witnesses. Again, this is all over the thread if you would take the time to, ya know, do a bit of research.

Really? Where did you receive this information?

 

[HumanityBlues]

That may well be.

Regardless, the tape would not have been eligible to be released, whether it exists or not - so it's a null argument.

Null argument in an unfair system. In a fair system you should at least get to hear the tape before you decide whether you want to make decisions on motioning against its admissibility.