Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[stilicho]

Do we have a basic itinerary for what happened in the 4 hours then? Just curious.

I don't. We know from police testimony (I believe it was Monica Napoleoni) that Amanda was taken to the cafeteria for some food and this was corroborated by Amanda herself. Who knows when that happened?

By the way, the article mentions a JAN 2008 interview at which AK almost spilled the beans. And I believe there was one in mid-DEC 2007 where she was also stopped in her tracks by her lawyers.

Are you under the impression that AK provided her inadmissible statements even sooner than 01:45? That puts a whole new spin on the very brief interval between finding a free room, setting up the chairs, getting the translator, asking a few routine questions, and AK blurting out Patrick's name as the killer.

-------------

Anyone who's ever been in police custody knows that four hours is nothing in terms of processing time. It can take that long just to be transferred from a waiting room and into a cell. To be taken out for snacks during that interval would be a luxury.

 

[Fulcanelli]

In Knox's case, a video or audio recording of the entire police interrogation -- authorities have denied that any such recordings exist -- could identify when police began treating Knox as a suspect and what procedures were followed.

I've tried to explain this many times and you seem to keep ignoring it. A suspect in Italy is not made or designated one on how they are 'treated'. They are not a suspect until they have FORMALLY been made one.

It seems really hard for some people to get their head around it but it's really rather simple. Here is an analogy that is actually identical:

Say you're going to get married. You can have been partners for a long time. You can actually regard each other as husband and wife, you can treat each other as husband and wife and do all the things husbands and wives tend to do...you can even be regarded as 'common law' husband and wife. But until you go through a full legal wedding ceremony you are not legally husband and wife...it's not just a personal, social and oft religious designation, it's a legal one. Once legally married, then you are legally entitled to the full rights and responsibilities conferred by the state on married couples.

It's exactly the same thing in the case of witnesses and suspects in Italy. You can suspect someone, talk to them like a suspect, treat them like a suspect...but until you formally make them a suspect (go through the ceremony if you like) they are not a formal suspect but a witness. And the police must do that when and only when, they have evidence against you and if they did so without that evidence they'd be breaking the law. It's as simple as that. Do you get it now?

 

[Fulcanelli]

In fact, Italy's Supreme Court has already said that some of her early statements may not be used against her because they were made without an attorney present.

Cannot be used against her in COURT, but they can be used to further the investigation which indeed it was. It was her second statement that morning that lead to the order being given for Patrick's arrest.

 

[shuttlt]

My understanding of that night is as such:

Immediately prior to 1:45, Amanda placed herself in the cottage while Meredith was being murdered.
At 1:45, The interview was stopped and Amanda was informed that she was now a suspect.

Sometime before 5:45, Amanda requested a pen and paper. She then wrote her letter.



Since there was no actual interrogation involving the letter (2nd statement of the night), it wasn't considered to be covered under the video-tape law.

I don't think this is correct. There are three documents. The 1:45am statement, the declaration to Mignini at 5:45am and the "gift". Supposedly the declaration wasn't an interrogation, but Amanda essentially dictating a statement to Mignini.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Do we have a basic itinerary for what happened in the 4 hours then? Just curious.

Monday 5th Nov

2000 Meredith's vigil held in Perugia, sans Amanda and Raffaele

2215 After having dinner, Amanda and Raffaele arrive at the police station

2230 Raffaele, being questioned at this point, breaks and begins to change his story

2239 Amanda is on the phone to Filomena, asking her if they are still going to live together

2300 Amanda, still in the police waiting area is told off by a senior police officer for inappropriate behaviour - splits, cartwheels and back bends

2400 Beginning of Amanda's questioning, which begins informaly as Amanda's official status is one of 'Witness', in the waiting area (Michael: later migrating at some point to an interview room?)


Tuesday 6th Nov, 2007

0145 Whilst Raffaele is still being questioned in a room elsewhere, Amanda changes her story and accuses Patrick Lumumba. At this point, all questioning is halted and Amanda is informed of her new status as 'Suspect'. The statements from this session could not be used against Amanda, as she was a 'Witness', but could be used against others. This signed statement is one page long

0330 At Amanda's request, she is heard again (the 'sponateous statement'), this time under the official status of 'Suspect' and in the presence of Prosecutor Mignini who has been called in, as there is no lawyer present for Amanda and only Judges can hear suspects. Here, Amanda repeats her accusation of Patrick Lumumba, but this time with a full story and details. The High Court would later rule that this statement could be used neither against Amanda or others, as she was a 'suspect' and no lawyer was present. This statement is five pages long

0545 Amanda's questioning is halted and her statement signed. She is formaly under arrest at this point. At some point shortly after this time, Amanda is taken for breakfast, after which she is retained in custody, as is Raffaele

Early Morning Patrick Lumumba is arrested and taken into custody as a 'Suspect' on the back of the testimonies provided by Raffaele and Amanda

Daytime Amanda requests a paper and pen, where she writes and signs a two page statement confirming her previous statements, although here she phrases it as a 'vision'. This is handed in to police officers as a "gift". This statement is legally defined as 'Spontaneous' (voluntary), reffered to as the 'Memoir', 'Memorial' or 'Two Page Note' and can be used against both Amanda and others. This document has been ruled admissible in the trial. Amanda and Raffaele are later transfered to Capanne prison to await their hearing to confirm their legal 'Suspect' status

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=2#p2

 

[stilicho]

It's exactly the same thing in the case of witnesses and suspects in Italy. You can suspect someone, talk to them like a suspect, treat them like a suspect...but until you formally make them a suspect (go through the ceremony if you like) they are not a formal suspect but a witness. And the police must do that when and only when, they have evidence against you and if they did so without that evidence they'd be breaking the law. It's as simple as that. Do you get it now?

And, to be clear, this wouldn't have happened to AK if she had not said she was there at the cottage. It was not simply Sollecito's breaking of their alibi covenant. He did not provide any evidence that she was there during the murder; she did that of her own accord.

Once that happened, they had no choice but to legally declare her a suspect and get her an attorney, etc.

Have I got that about right?

 

[stilicho]

Daytime Amanda requests a paper and pen, where she writes and signs a two page statement confirming her previous statements, although here she phrases it as a 'vision'. This is handed in to police officers as a "gift". This statement is legally defined as 'Spontaneous' (voluntary), reffered to as the 'Memoir', 'Memorial' or 'Two Page Note' and can be used against both Amanda and others. This document has been ruled admissible in the trial. Amanda and Raffaele are later transfered to Capanne prison to await their hearing to confirm their legal 'Suspect' status

This is the one reprinted in the Telegraph. She confirms the statements she made and she is questioned about its authenticity in court. She wrote this without an attorney present.

Am I right about that?

 

[Fulcanelli]

And, to be clear, this wouldn't have happened to AK if she had not said she was there at the cottage. It was not simply Sollecito's breaking of their alibi covenant. He did not provide any evidence that she was there during the murder; she did that of her own accord.

Once that happened, they had no choice but to legally declare her a suspect and get her an attorney, etc.

Have I got that about right?

Yes...it was her confirmation that she was at the cottage WHILE the murder was taking place that provided the legally required grounds for her suspect status.

 

[Fulcanelli]

This is the one reprinted in the Telegraph. She confirms the statements she made and she is questioned about its authenticity in court. She wrote this without an attorney present.

Am I right about that?

Yes. And even though an attorney wasn't present, it's still legal because she wrote and signed it herself and presented it to the authorities and this was unsolicited by the authorities. In short, Amanda by her own actions made it a full legal document.

 

[Amazer]

Monday 5th Nov

2000 Meredith's vigil held in Perugia, sans Amanda and Raffaele

2215 After having dinner, Amanda and Raffaele arrive at the police station

2230 Raffaele, being questioned at this point, breaks and begins to change his story

2239 Amanda is on the phone to Filomena, asking her if they are still going to live together

2300 Amanda, still in the police waiting area is told off by a senior police officer for inappropriate behaviour - splits, cartwheels and back bends

2400 Beginning of Amanda's questioning, which begins informaly as Amanda's official status is one of 'Witness', in the waiting area (Michael: later migrating at some point to an interview room?)


Tuesday 6th Nov, 2007

0145 Whilst Raffaele is still being questioned in a room elsewhere, Amanda changes her story and accuses Patrick Lumumba. At this point, all questioning is halted and Amanda is informed of her new status as 'Suspect'. The statements from this session could not be used against Amanda, as she was a 'Witness', but could be used against others. This signed statement is one page long

0330 At Amanda's request, she is heard again (the 'sponateous statement'), this time under the official status of 'Suspect' and in the presence of Prosecutor Mignini who has been called in, as there is no lawyer present for Amanda and only Judges can hear suspects. Here, Amanda repeats her accusation of Patrick Lumumba, but this time with a full story and details. The High Court would later rule that this statement could be used neither against Amanda or others, as she was a 'suspect' and no lawyer was present. This statement is five pages long

0545 Amanda's questioning is halted and her statement signed. She is formaly under arrest at this point. At some point shortly after this time, Amanda is taken for breakfast, after which she is retained in custody, as is Raffaele

Early Morning Patrick Lumumba is arrested and taken into custody as a 'Suspect' on the back of the testimonies provided by Raffaele and Amanda

Daytime Amanda requests a paper and pen, where she writes and signs a two page statement confirming her previous statements, although here she phrases it as a 'vision'. This is handed in to police officers as a "gift". This statement is legally defined as 'Spontaneous' (voluntary), reffered to as the 'Memoir', 'Memorial' or 'Two Page Note' and can be used against both Amanda and others. This document has been ruled admissible in the trial. Amanda and Raffaele are later transfered to Capanne prison to await their hearing to confirm their legal 'Suspect' status

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=2#p2

I have to say that those Italian police officers are pretty efficient. In less then 100 minutes they've managed to give Amanda false memories and have her making statements based on those memories.

 

[43degreesNorth]

Amanda is not unreliable.

Exxxxcuuuuuse me!!!

What about walking away from a job placement in Germany... what about a hookup with a stranger on a train with younger sister in tow...

 

[el buscador]

According to Candace Dempsey's book, there was the 1:45 AM statement, then mignini was immediately called in because only he could sign the detention order for Amanda and Raffaele. He entered the interrogation room and stayed for an unspecified amount of time. A second statement came at 5:45. Amanda's written "gift" came later in the morning as the paperwork was being processed.

 

[Kestrel]

According to Candace Dempsey's book, there was the 1:45 AM statement, then mignini was immediately called in because only he could sign the detention order for Amanda and Raffaele. He entered the interrogation room and stayed for an unspecified amount of time. A second statement came at 5:45. Amanda's written "gift" came later in the morning as the paperwork was being processed.

The Supreme Court ruling made that clear. Amanda was interrogated twice during the night, signing statements at 1:45 and 5:45. The letter she wrote in english was created later in the day.

The claim that the 5:45 statement was at Amanda's request is simply a lie. The timeline posted by Fulcanelli is also mostly fiction. The times for indicated for when the interviews started are not supported by any evidence.

 

[Amazer]

The Supreme Court ruling made that clear. Amanda was interrogated twice during the night, signing statements at 1:45 and 5:45. The letter she wrote in english was created later in the day.

The claim that the 5:45 statement was at Amanda's request is simply a lie. The timeline posted by Fulcanelli is also mostly fiction. The times for indicated for when the interviews started are not supported by any evidence.

Kestrel,

Instead of rubbishing Fulcanelli's timeline, why don't you put up the 'real' timeline (with supporting evidence of course).

Amazer

 

[shuttlt]

The Supreme Court ruling made that clear. Amanda was interrogated twice during the night, signing statements at 1:45 and 5:45. The letter she wrote in english was created later in the day.

Do you have a quote that makes it explicitly clear. The 5:45am thing seems to be interchangeably called a "statement" and a "voluntary declaration". I can't find anything official that calls it an interrogation.

The claim that the 5:45 statement was at Amanda's request is simply a lie.

What do you base this on?

The timeline posted by Fulcanelli is also mostly fiction. The times for indicated for when the interviews started are not supported by any evidence.

Which bit? For myself I'm not sure about the 11pm and 12am timings of the cartwheels anf the beginning of the interrogation.

 

[el buscador]

Yes, Kestrel, I agree, the claim that Amanda "requested" to be heard again at 3:30 is rubbish. Mignini had arrived by that time and entered the interrogation room. According to Amanda there was more of the same yelling with officers coming in and out of the room and mignini making "suggestions" about things she might have seen and heard that night. The only thing Amanda requested that night was a lawyer and she was told that would only make things worse for her.

 

[quadraginta]

I think the topic of CCTV recordings of police interviews is one in which we're all in agreement. They should be required by law if they aren't already. Just think of all the awesome footage for America's Funniest Police Interrogations.
<snip>

We've had that for years now. It's called Nancy Grace, and airs at 8:00pm Eastern Time every night on HLN (HeadLine News).

Nancy (may her shriveled, coprolitic substitute for a heart rot, burn, and freeze for all eternity in every Hell ever imagined by humankind) delights in taking full advantage of Florida's "Sunshine Law", which brings the thrust of this trend to its pitiful conclusion.

The Florida law mandates that all public records be freely available on request. This includes anything surrendered to (or from) a defense team through discovery, all recordings of suspect or witness interrogations, all jail recordings including visits from parents, all requests from the jail commissary ... you get the idea. Only very specific exceptions can be made under extremely limited circumstances, and a finding by a judge is required for each such exception.

This has enabled the Grace creature to fill the largest portion of her program for the last two years with the public records from two cases in particular, the murder of Caylee Anthony and her mother's incarceration for that crime, and the disappearance of Hayleigh Cummings, and the soap opera surrounding the various characters involved in that.

Jailhouse video of Casey Anthony visiting with her parents, complete with scary color saturation effects and weird strobe lighting are regular fare, as are learned discussions with "experts" in body language and pop psychology. Her consumption of snacks and her toiletry orders from the jail commissary are the subject of extended ridicule. The balance on her commissary account is analyzed in painful detail, and colorful suppositions about the motives of anonymous donors to that account are fruitful comedy territory. Each court appearance is good for a second-by-second commentary of her hairstyle, weight, and couture, with occasional brief references to the proceedings themselves.

Every night.

For nearly a year and a half it was almost the only content on her program.

Every night.

The cast of the Haleigh Cummings saga is mined with even more unrestrained glee, since they appear to be godsent caricatures of Central Casting white trailer trash. What makes this even more compelling, in a sick, twisted fashion, is that not a single one of them has actually been charged with any offense relating to the disappearance of the little girl. The ones who are in jail are there on charges of trafficking Oxycontin, apprehended after a month-long sting operation, a year after the disappearance.

The fun isn't limited to Florida cases, although they provide the most in contributions from the state. Halides1 might have some choice comments on the Grace creature's rendition of the Duke Lacrosse case.

When Knox defenders complain of the treatment she supposedly received in the Italian press, and wax philosophical about the shortcomings of Italian justice and the innate superiority of the American Way^TM I can only think of the old adage "Be careful what you wish for. ..."

She could have been busted in Florida.

 

[shuttlt]

Yes, Kestrel, I agree, the claim that Amanda "requested" to be heard again at 3:30 is rubbish. Mignini had arrived by that time and entered the interrogation room. According to Amanda there was more of the same yelling with officers coming in and out of the room and mignini making "suggestions" about things she might have seen and heard that night. The only thing Amanda requested that night was a lawyer and she was told that would only make things worse for her.

What source are you relying on for this?

 

[el buscador]

None that you would agree with. As you can see from fulcanelli's timeline, it is rather stark and void of particulars. Where would you think any details of that night might come from?

 

[shuttlt]

None that you would agree with. As you can see from fulcanelli's timeline, it is rather stark and void of particulars. Where would you think any details of that night might come from?

They vary. Some come from Amanda's own statements, many come from trial transcripts, or newspaper articles. Does it matter if I don't agree with your source? Surely it's better to state the source, even if I disagree with it, rather than just turning this into a debate where you assert stuff out of the ether? I am happy to tell you my sources, even though I suspect you won't wholely accept them. If we need two timelines to understand the official chain of events, and the Amanda chain of events, then I personally am happy for that to be the case. I would hope that much of both timelines would be identical. I believe there is a timeline over at InjusticeInPerugia? Perhaps now would be a good time to compare the two again.

Incidentally, I found this:

AK: The declarations were taken against my will. And so, everything that
I said, was said in confusion and under pressure, and, because they were
suggested by the public minister.

CP: Excuse me, but at 1:45, the pubblico ministero was not there, there
was only the judicial police.

AK: Ha. They also were pressuring me.

Which to my mind looks like Amanda contesting that the 5:45am was initiated by her. It's kind of confused though, perhaps there is a better quote of her talking about this where she doesn't confuse the two statements.