Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Mary_H]

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.

They didn't have guilty consciences. They had no reason to fear they would be imprisoned and tried for murder.

 

[Fiona]

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.

Why not find out?

 

[Mary_H]

Why not find out?

It doesn't make any difference to this discussion.

 

[Fiona]

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.

Fair enough: I have read about that progression too. It is about how police officers are trained, if we are talking about the same thing, and if we are I linked it a long time age. It is not a formal legal distinction. I was not sure but thanks for the clarification

FWIW I think in these terms it started as an interview and turned to an interrogation when RS blew her alibi. But it does not matter much

 

[Fiona]

It doesn't make any difference to this discussion.

Ok. So we can dispense with the implication that there is something odd or unfair about this. Good

 

[Mary_H]

Ok. So we can dispense with the implication that there is something odd or unfair about this. Good

Huh? How does that follow?

HB wrote: "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."

Then you wrote: Witness statements are not recorded in Scotland. So our system is unfair too?

Nobody answered your question.

I think what HB was driving at was that the fairest process would be to record witness and suspects' statements, then allow the witnesses or suspects later to decide whether or not they would like to use the statement at trial. That would be a system that really does protect the witness or suspect.

 

[HumanityBlues]

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.

This might help. These are just federal protections however, and each state may offer more protection: http://www.mirandawarning.org/index.html As is the case with most things regarding the law, "it depends".

 

[Amazer]

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?

How long are they going to wait? How long has it been since the interrogation?

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.

Right....

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.

I don't think anyone here has said that "false memory" or "false confession" do not occur. It's just that in Amanda's case it seems pretty unlikely IMHO.

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.

Maybe, maybe not. I honestly don't put much stock in what Amanda's says, mostly due to the fact that here story is ever evolving.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Huh? How does that follow?

HB wrote: "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."

Then you wrote: Witness statements are not recorded in Scotland. So our system is unfair too?

Nobody answered your question.

I think what HB was driving at was that the fairest process would be to record witness and suspects' statements, then allow the witnesses or suspects later to decide whether or not they would like to use the statement at trial. That would be a system that really does protect the witness or suspect.

I couldn't tell if Fiona was responding to me or someone else. My only point was, if there was ever an audio or video of the interrogation, in a just system, you get to look at the video yourself to see if there is anything tending to be exculpatory. Even if there isn't anything exculpatory, you should be able to look at it. The counterargument that the "guilty side" is likely to use is that, "oh well, it doesn't matter since her statement wasn't admissible anyways", but that argument doesn't really hold water since the lawyers challenged and got rid of Amanda's first statement but without ever hearing or seeing the audio or video of the interrogation, thus denying them the right to weigh the costs, risks and benefits of using it as a piece of evidence (assuming a hypothetical that it was recorded). I don't see how anyone can argue that it's fair to withhold any evidence from the defense, especially something like this, unless they are a total apologist.

With respect to Fiona's question about video/audio taping custodial interrogations in the U.S., as far as I'm aware, most States don't require it. I know New York doesn't. Personally I think they should require it, but that's more of a philosophical discussion.

 

[stilicho]

I think what HB was driving at was that the fairest process would be to record witness and suspects' statements, then allow the witnesses or suspects later to decide whether or not they would like to use the statement at trial. That would be a system that really does protect the witness or suspect.

That doesn't exist anywhere. No legal system anywhere would condone a defendant in a trial to maintain a veto over anything he or she said.

Actually, I shouldn't really say that. In Italy (unlike the USA) a defendant is allowed to testify without taking an oath to tell the truth. So, of their own words in front of a court, a defendant has complete control over what they want to say--true or false--without any risk of perjury.

Martha Stewart and several MLB players could have used those individual protections that are absent in the USA.

 

[stilicho]

With respect to Fiona's question about video/audio taping custodial interrogations in the U.S., as far as I'm aware, most State's don't require it. I know New York doesn't. Personally I think they should require it, but that's more of a philosophical discussion.

They should require it if only for the fact that it helps law enforcement professionals. I don't have linkies but there are about a dozen easy-to-find pdfs on-line that show how it helps produce admissible statements without fear of unfounded accusations.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Why on earth would they ask her for her phone if they didn't suspect her of being involved in the crime?

Why not?

And I think by that point news had come through that Raffaele had dropped her alibi.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Are you saying it is illegal for the police to record witness interrogations according to the Laws of Italy?

Not trying to be difficult but I am struggling to understand why the interview would not have been taped.

Under Italian law it can't be used in court. Therefore, they'd have had no need or purpose to record it.

 

[Fulcanelli]

The interrogators knew exactly what they were doing. Amanda asked if she should have a lawyer. They said it would be worse for her if she did.

They scared the hell out of her and received unreliable information in return. They took this unreliable information and arrested Patrick. They should have investigated Patrick further of course but they did not.

Which was the truth. Had she insisted on having a lawyer they'd have had to make her a formal suspect.

This is a debate that will never be resolved here. She was being treated as a suspect, not a witness. She should have had an attorney.

Repeat your beliefs again. Then I will repeat mine. This is an endless cycle when it comes to the interrogation.

Again you make claims that have no basis in and are contradicted by, Italian law.

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."

According to the police it wasn't taped. Were it taped, it couldn't be heard in court anyway under Italian law. The law exists to protect the witness/suspect.

 

[Fulcanelli]

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.

Pap. When asked to identify the officer that hit she couldn't.

What is the reasoning behind not recording them?

for exactly the same reason that witness statements cannot be used against the witness. Hearing the recordings may be self incriminating. And Italian law protects the witness from incriminating the self as a witness.

 

[Fulcanelli]

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

No. It started out as just some informal questioning in the police waiting room. It only became an 'interrogation' when news came over that Raffaele had dropped Amanda's alibi. That is understandable.

 

[shuttlt]

No. It started out as just some informal questioning in the police waiting room. It only became an 'interrogation' when news came over that Raffaele had dropped Amanda's alibi. That is understandable.

I'm not up enough on the timeliine to argue.

I found the article upon which I based my understanding of the interview/interrogation distinction:

Investigators must make a clear distinction between the two processes of interviewing and interrogating subjects. An interview should precede every interrogation. Through the interview, officers learn about the subjects and their needs, fears, concerns, and attitudes. They then use this information to prepare themes or arguments to use during interrogations.

During interviews, subjects answer questions from investigators about the crimes, themselves, and others involved in these incidents. Through this nonthreatening initial inquiry, investigators identify non-verbal and verbal behavior exhibited by the subjects, build rapport and find common ground with them, determine if they should be interrogated (if doubt exists about the subjects’ involvement, no interrogation should be conducted), and obtain additional case facts.

Conversely, interrogations bring investigations to a close. Investigators use different skills in interrogations, confronting subjects with statements rather than asking for information. In interrogations, investigators lead, and subjects follow.5 Investigators do not seek information. They do not take notes. They only want to obtain truthful admissions or confessions.

Continuing to obtain erroneous or fabricated facts while trying to secure truthful admissions causes investigators to lose the advantage in the interrogation process. Once investigators determine that interrogation is warranted, obtaining the truth from the subjects becomes their only goal.

http://www.crimeandclues.com/index.php/testimonial-evidence/46-interviews-and-interrogation/80-conducting-successful-interrogations

I'd be happy to call the "can you list the men who visited the house?" questions, an interview - and the "what do you mean you don't know who the SMS is to an interrogation". I realize I had it locked away in my brain somewhere that the shuffled her off to the interview room after Raffaele dropped he alibi, but I no longer recall what prompted me to think that.

 

[shuttlt]

The counterargument that the "guilty side" is likely to use is that, "oh well, it doesn't matter since her statement wasn't admissible anyways", but that argument doesn't really hold water since the lawyers challenged and got rid of Amanda's first statement but without ever hearing or seeing the audio or video of the interrogation, thus denying them the right to weigh the costs, risks and benefits of using it as a piece of evidence (assuming a hypothetical that it was recorded). I don't see how anyone can argue that it's fair to withhold any evidence from the defense, especially something like this, unless they are a total apologist.

The defence could perhaps make a judgement relying on the honesty of their client in reporting what happened in the interview, but in all seriousness, I can not think of a good reason not to give the defence sufficient access to whatever documentation exists in order to make an informed judgement about the interrogation, and there are many reasons why it would be a good idea to do so. If it really is the case in Italy that they would not have access to these recordings, if they existed, I would be very interested to know the thinking behind it. I might be wrong, but I would imagine there are European laws that one could appeal to under these circumstances, it may not apply to documents held by police in ongoing investigations, but ordinarily data protection laws would have something to say about this kind of thing.

 

[Fulcanelli]

The defence could perhaps make a judgement relying on the honesty of their client in reporting what happened in the interview, but in all seriousness, I can not think of a good reason not to give the defence sufficient access to whatever documentation exists in order to make an informed judgement about the interrogation, and there are many reasons why it would be a good idea to do so. If it really is the case in Italy that they would not have access to these recordings, if they existed, I would be very interested to know the thinking behind it. I might be wrong, but I would imagine there are European laws that one could appeal to under these circumstances, it may not apply to documents held by police in ongoing investigations, but ordinarily data protection laws would have something to say about this kind of thing.

The problem is, a certain piece of data cannot only be released to only the defence. Any data released must be released to all parties (that includes legal teams representing all the victims). Once that happens, the state is no longer in control of that information not being released/leaked to the public and thereby prejudicing the accused. Therefore, the legal solution of the Italian law is to rule they can't be released to anyone.

But, if you want a more detailed explanation on the matter, I recommend you post a question on truejustice.org addressed to 'Commissario Montalbano'. He's an Italian lawyer (and a handy one to have around since he also speaks English). As we speak, he's helping Clander and Yummi with the translation on the Massei Report, ensuring that all the legalise has been translated correctly.

 

[43degreesNorth]

Interesting reading the last 8 hours. We have a discussion of Amanda naming her innocent employer as the murderer of her housemate, after being asked again and again about her text messages then all of the sudden Mary H cries for help on the board, Bruce arrives and the topic changes......