Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Bruce Fischer]

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.

So you knew where this information came from? So you were simply wasting my time.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

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.

So you posted the comment below as if it was a fact and you didn't have any clue if it was true?


BobTheDonkey wrote - "The interrogation was taped. But it was not allowed to be released due to Italian law protecting witnesses."

 

[Mary_H]

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?

That is the sensible way to think about it. After Amanda was accused of slandering the police by claiming they hit her, an investigation was conducted. Here is an interview about the investigation with one of the prosecutors, Manuela Comodi, and Frank Sfarzo of Perugia Shock:

Q: Who did Amanda slander?
A: Some policeman at the trial.
Q: For the law, slander is when someone presents a lawsuit, a complaint or a request in order to blame someone for a crime that he knows is innocent...
A: (checking the code) Lawsuit, complaint, request... yes.
Q: ...Did Amanda present a lawsuit, a complaint, a request? Did she give a name?
Q: No, but the interpretation...
Q: Did the Supreme Court interpret that even when you just say that by responding to a question you make a slander?
A: Yes, and since the beginning, since the law was made.
Q: Maybe there exists another Supreme Court ruling, maybe more recent and of a higher section, that says the opposite.
A: I don't think so.
Q: So, what did today happen?
A: You know that: she received the notice of conclusion of investigation.
Q: What was done as investigation?
A: Nothing, what should we have done? She did it in front of everyone.
Q: You didn't think you could maybe investigate if what she said was true?
A: And what should we have done, interview the interpreter?
Q: The interpreter and all other witnesses, the suspect, the victims. Run the investigation, you know how to make them.
A: Please... there's nothing to investigate, she did the slander in public. And everybody was already heard at the trial.
Q: So she said that, in the courtroom, and Mignini asked to send the acts to the prosecution office.
A: We asked to send the acts to the prosecution office. He spoke because one has to speak, but we decided together.
Q: And to which prosecutor did the acts arrive?
A: You know that: to me and Mignini.
Q: Just to you and Mignini?
A: Yes, it was sent to us. But if you know that why you ask?
Q: It's particular in this case, I wanted to hear it again. Are you going to press charges?
Q: We'll see.

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/

You can see why they feel no need to protect themselves against false accusations, because all accusations against them are false.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

So you posted the comment below as if it was a fact and you didn't have any clue if it was true?


BobTheDonkey wrote - "The interrogation was taped. But it was not allowed to be released due to Italian law protecting witnesses."

I was, apparently, mistaken. Thanks for the catch, Bruce (but I already stated as much a few posts ago).


So, corrected all those errors on your website yet?

 

[Amazer]

That is the sensible way to think about it. After Amanda was accused of slandering the police by claiming they hit her, an investigation was conducted. Here is an interview about the investigation with one of the prosecutors, Manuela Comodi, and Frank Sfarzo of Perugia Shock:


You can see why they feel no need to protect themselves against false accusations, because all accusations against them are false.

So, what is the reason that the defense for Amanda isn't following up on the 'slapped on the head during interrogation' charge? Prove that and the whole 'false accusation/false memory' issue might get a little more traction then it currently has.

 

[Mary_H]

So, what is the reason that the defense for Amanda isn't following up on the 'slapped on the head during interrogation' charge? Prove that and the whole 'false accusation/false memory' issue might get a little more traction then it currently has.

In what way should they be following up? By filing a suit for police brutality? Do we know they aren't planning to do that?

I think they probably have enough to do as it is right now. Anyway, everyone who says Amanda got hit on the head by the police gets sued for slander by Mignini, and her lawyers probably don't want to be subjected to that grief.

It seems to me the "false memory" issue gets plenty of traction from people who want to be educated about it. Other people just want remain in denial about false confessions.

There is no reason to doubt Amanda's account of being hit twice on the back of the head. If she were trying to establish police brutality through lying, she would have claimed she got hit numerous times, or that they slapped her across the face or something like that. Her story is pretty tame, relatively speaking, so it's likely true.

 

[Fiona]

Witness statements are not recorded in Scotland. So our system is unfair too?

 

[Mary_H]

Witness statements are not recorded in Scotland. So our system is unfair too?

What is the reasoning behind not recording them?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

In what way should they be following up? By filing a suit for police brutality? Do we know they aren't planning to do that?

I think they probably have enough to do as it is right now. Anyway, everyone who says Amanda got hit on the head by the police gets sued for slander by Mignini, and her lawyers probably don't want to be subjected to that grief.

It seems to me the "false memory" issue gets plenty of traction from people who want to be educated about it. Other people just want remain in denial about false confessions.

No, most of us agree that false memories can be induced. However, we disagree that the conditions present in Amanda's interview were sufficient for this to have happened. She even realizes how ridiculous it would sound for these memories to have been implanted in <2hrs, so she claims the interview went on for "hours and hours and hours".

There is no reason to doubt Amanda's account of being hit twice on the back of the head. If she were trying to establish police brutality through lying, she would have claimed she got hit numerous times, or that they slapped her across the face or something like that. Her story is pretty tame, relatively speaking, so it's likely true.

Do you have any evidence, whatsoever, that it happened? Other than Amanda's claims?

 

[Fiona]

Are all witness statements recorded in america?

 

[Malkmus]

So, what is the reason that the defense for Amanda isn't following up on the 'slapped on the head during interrogation' charge?

The appeal isn't for a year. Why do you assume that incident won't be a part of it? According to news reports the interrogation will be a focal point of the appeal.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/AmandaKno...tness-prove-innocent/story?id=10412504&page=2

The appeal also claims Knox was denied her legal rights during the initial police interrogation when she gave conflicting statements about the night of the murder.

"She was not provided with an official interpreter. She was not provided with a lawyer," Mellas said. "She was smacked on the back of the head, she was threatened , she was screamed at."

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

. Concerning the footprints found in the hallway using luminal – from what I understand, you have Rudy’s trail leading from Meredith’s room out the front door, and Amanda’s and RS’s in the hallway with Amanda’s at some point standing in front of Merediths door, Is this correct?

 

[stilicho]

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.

I tend to agree that the one part of the Italian system that seems a little unfair is the classification of interviewees. This has been a feature of the thread, too.

1] You may suspect someone of a crime in Italy without legally declaring them a suspect.

2] Interviews in Italy are not necessarily recorded by audio or audio/visual means.

Are we all pretty much agreed on those things?

I spent some time about two months ago googling police interviewing techniques in the USA and they don't appear to materially differ in most cases. The police are encouraged to conduct the interviews in such a way that the suspect (or witness) does not feel compelled to "lawyer up". The studies I read showed that those jurisdictions requiring audio/video records are no less effective in producing admissible statements than those who don't.

It is almost bizarre that RS and AK allowed themselves to be interviewed on several occasions in the four days after Meredith's murder, had close contact with their families over this time, and did not realise that they were the focus of a serious criminal investigation. Or, more properly, that they did, and that they were warned (remember Sollecito's dad scolding him about taking the knife with him to the Questura) and still did nothing.

We even know, from the contents of AK's 04 NOV 2007 alibi email, that she was apparently already told about her connection to the bathroom bloodstains.

The facts are that, in spite of any legal protections, AK continued to offer information that really ruined the inadmissibility of the early accusation against Patrick. By 05:45 on 06 NOV 2007, she had legal advice, and knew full well that she was no longer a witness but a suspect. How would audio/visual recordings have helped her then? Were they supposed to show four hours of her sitting there doing nothing and then asking for a pen and paper?

I have been trying to find an American equivalent of someone making an inadmissible statement during an interview and subsequently abjuring their Miranda rights and asking for writing materials to confirm their previous statements. Are you aware of any?

 

[shuttlt]

No, most of us agree that false memories can be induced. However, we disagree that the conditions present in Amanda's interview were sufficient for this to have happened. She even realizes how ridiculous it would sound for these memories to have been implanted in <2hrs, so she claims the interview went on for "hours and hours and hours".

Even if the conditions were present, it is a leap to go from that to unreservedly accepting that this was a false confession in which she internalized the accusations and developed false memories. I appreciate one can't very easily map the statistics I posted earlier onto this case, but it's clear that a good percentage of false confessions where the suspect unequivocally confesses (which I hope we all agree isn't what happened here) are down to the suspect knowingly and consciously lying to the police.

 

[stilicho]

Are all witness statements recorded in america?

I think you mean audio/visual recording. This has been typically one of the mystifying things about this thread. All statements to police are recorded. They carry little notebooks. They call into the station.

And this is without any suspicious activity or any official interview.

We live in a CCTV era in which we seem to believe that the only right way to record anything is by photography. Didn't the much-vaunted CCTV of the Times Square "bomber" actually depict an innocent man merely putting his jacket away?

 

[shuttlt]

I spent some time about two months ago googling police interviewing techniques in the USA and they don't appear to materially differ in most cases. The police are encouraged to conduct the interviews in such a way that the suspect (or witness) does not feel compelled to "lawyer up". The studies I read showed that those jurisdictions requiring audio/video records are no less effective in producing admissible statements than those who don't.

It's pretty clear that it was an interrogation, rather than an interview, that happened on the 5th/6th.

 

[Fiona]

The appeal isn't for a year. Why do you assume that incident won't be a part of it? According to news reports the interrogation will be a focal point of the appeal.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/AmandaKno...tness-prove-innocent/story?id=10412504&page=2

The appeal also claims Knox was denied her legal rights during the initial police interrogation when she gave conflicting statements about the night of the murder.

"She was not provided with an official interpreter. She was not provided with a lawyer," Mellas said. "She was smacked on the back of the head, she was threatened , she was screamed at."

But she did have an interpreter.

 

[Fiona]

It's pretty clear that it was an interrogation, rather than an interview, that happened on the 5th/6th.

What is the distinction you are drawing here? I am not being difficult: I just do not understand the significance

 

[shuttlt]

What is the distinction you are drawing here? I am not being difficult: I just do not understand the significance

Speaking with all the authority of an IT systems administrator on this issue, as I understood it, an interview is more relaxed, getting the subject to talk and volunteer information - "can you tell me about what happened on the night of the murder" type stuff. An interrogation is more challenging, more questioning, and more pressured. I dug up a link last night about interrogations/interviews in the US which I will have a look for shortly. In the US there seems to be quite a well defined difference. I'm sure I'm right (of wrong) HumanityBlues will be able to give a more authoritative answer.

 

[Mary_H]

Are all witness statements recorded in america?

I have no idea. I assume it depends on where the witness's statement is taken. If it were taken in an interrogation room, it probably would be recorded. If it is taken outside the interrogations room, then probably not, but I don't know.

AS JREF2010 points out, it only makes sense that the police would want to protect themselves against allegations of abuse. I believe most police facilities have security cameras in every room.