Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[quadraginta]

I shouldn't have used the word "routine", which might be taken to mean 'mandatory'.

But psych evaluations of suspects are very common in murder trials in the UK and the US, and it seems to me that they are even more urgently needed in Italy, where the prosecution (the State, in effect) is completely unrestrained when it comes to "speculating" about (to reiterate) personality, character and motivation.

I took "routine" to mean "common".

I am not disagreeing with you with any claim of authority, as I have done no research on the subject. My own general impression is that "common" would not be an accurate term, either. At least in the sense that it is done more often than it is not

Since you bring it up, what basis do you have to assert that compared to the U.S. "... the prosecution (the State, in effect) is completely unrestrained when it comes to "speculating" about (to reiterate) personality, character and motivation.", in Italy?

Since argument by anecdote has proven to be so popular with Knox partisans, I'm sure I could provide a wealth of examples of U.S. prosecutors who have suffered no serious legal impediment to their conjectures in court. I don't think we really need to go there, though. Do you?

 

[katy_did]

Then you should have no problem giving us the page number of the Massei Report where audits and accreditation of the Rome crime lab is discussed. A bit of quoted text would also help prove your claim.

Think this is what Fulcanelli is talking about, Kestrel:

Responding to questions from the defense of Raffaele Sollecito, [Stefanoni] stated that the analysis had taken place at the forensic laboratory in Rome. She knew what the quality certification ISO 9001 was, and stated that for over a year they had been waiting to get this certification for which they had implemented the necessary procedures. She indicated that, unlike the quality certification ISO 9001 which covers the procedures to be followed to ensure smooth implementation of testing, certification ISO 17025 relates to laboratory technicians investigation and also includes the tools and equipment that are used for analysis.

She added that they were proceeding to get this certification too. She explained that in order to obtain these certifications "you have to put in writing things that you may perhaps do already, though, in fact, we needed to put it in writing because there is an external certification body that should have known" (p. 106 ).

She stated that the procedures adopted, which gave the results shown, were those which are implemented by all laboratories involved in forensic genetics of this type of analysis. (p211)

Not quite accurate for Fulcanelli to imply the lab is/was already accredited, then...

 

[LondonJohn]

Why?

Let's turn your argument around. Why arrest Rudy in Germany? Why not assign an 8 man surveillance team to him instead?

I fail to see or understand why Patrick should have been put under surveillance instead of arresting him...what is your argument for their doing so?



Why NOT under arrest?



Your argument is based on assumptions. Why should the police have made such assumptions and taken the risk?

I really do seriously wonder whether you read my posts all the way through, or whether you read some parts and discard others.

Here we go: I. AM. NOT. ARGUING. THAT. LUMUMBA. SHOULD. HAVE. BEEN. PUT. UNDER. SURVEILLANCE. ON. 6TH NOVEMBER.

I. SPECIFICALLY. ARGUED. AGAINST. IT.

I can re-quote for you the exact part of the self-same post that you've quoted in my reply that explicitly makes this point. Perhaps you could do me the courtesy of re-reading it yourself though.

What I am arguing, instead, is that it would have been POSSIBLE for such surveillance to take place - since I took issue with your somewhat sweeping (and laden with sub-text) assertion that it was a ridiculous idea to even consider. You made, for example, a somewhat mocking reference to crime running rampant in Perugia if the police had had to re-deploy officers to surveil Lumumba. I, on the other hand, argued that such a surveillance was both feasible and possible. But I then went on to argue that it would be undesirable - primarily owing to the risk of re-offending if Lumumba was indeed a serial rapist/murderer. So I agreed that the best thing for police to do was to brink Lumumba into the station, but to give him the chance to attend voluntarily while checking out his position further.

 

[stilicho]

The Rome crime lab that did the DNA tests in the Knox case is apparently audited about as frequently as Bernie Madoff^WP.

There are EU agencies that accredit and audit crime labs, but the Rome crime lab doesn't appear on any of their lists of accredited labs.

You couldn't find anything and therefore assumed that the EU allows the Polizia Scientifica to freelance? I call shenanigans. You don't know, do you?

 

[stilicho]

Here we go: I. AM. NOT. ARGUING. THAT. LUMUMBA. SHOULD. HAVE. BEEN. PUT. UNDER. SURVEILLANCE. ON. 6TH NOVEMBER.

We're still waiting for you to explain how the Perugia police were supposed to know that Amanda lied ("unreliable" to quote you).

 

[el buscador]

Reading through London John's posts on Patrick's arrest, it dawned on me that the police arrested him on a statement given by someone they thought of as an "accomplice" to the crime. How reliable are accomplice's statements? Don't most police take that kind of finger pointing with a huge amount of skepticism. Especially when the accomplice names someone who the police claim was never on the radar for committing the crime.

That Patrick should have been brought in for questioning is inarguable, IMO, but I do highly question that he should have been arrested before he was even questioned for the first time.

 

[stilicho]

It should be clear to everyone that you simply made another false claim about what was in the report.

This may be OK on PMF, but on JREF we have higher standards for evidence.

You're going to have to wait for the PMF volunteer team to finish the translation and proofreading work before you're able to read it for yourself.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=7715&d=1185150245

 

[LondonJohn]

No...once you've been made a formal suspect or/and arrested.

Is it different for witnesses in the US Mary?

In this post, you appear to separate "being made a formal suspect" and "being arrested" - implying that the two are not only different, but by logical extension one can precede the other in time (or CAN SOMETIMES be simultaneous). Yet in a reply to me just a few posts earlier, you say:

"Which translates to making him a suspect which in turn translates to arresting him. The Italian equivalent of 'under caution' is 'formal suspect'."

What you write there in the first sentence implies that the very act of making Lumumba a suspect is analogous to arresting him (i.e. explicitly interlinking the statuses of "suspect" and "arrested person", and painting them as necessarily simultaneous events).

Which of the two positions better reflects your beliefs of how the Italian criminal justice system works?

But then the situation gets even more confusing. Your second sentence above explicitly equates the Italian "formal suspect" with the UK "under caution". I would agree with this comparison. But I therefore believe that in neither case is a suspect automatically deemed arrest-worthy. Any arrest would be the following step in the process.

From your knowledge of Italian law, can someone be officially denoted a "formal suspect" without being arrested? My current belief is that this can indeed happen. If "formal suspect" is the equivalent of "under caution" as you yourself allege, then presumably a formal suspect can be asked to attend a police station voluntarily - with attorney if required - but not kept in custody against his/her will. And it's what I argue should have happened to Lumumba - unless and until he either became non-compliant in any way or he incriminated himself in interview.

Of course, I'm also absolutely not arguing that someone COULD go from being of no status whatsoever in an inquiry to being arrested immediately. But I'd argue that the very few ways in which a person could be elevated in such a quick manner would be, for example, if their blood or semen DNA had been found on the murder victim (or murder weapon), or if there was very reliable and corroborated eyewitness testimony, or if explicit documentary evidence (e.g. emails, other recorded communications) clearly and directly implicating the person was discovered. I would argue that in nearly every other instance, the person in question should at least be given the chance to explain themselves voluntarily (as a "formal suspect" in Italian parlance, or "in interview under caution" in the UK parlance) before they are formally placed under arrest.

 

[stilicho]

Reading through London John's posts on Patrick's arrest, it dawned on me that the police arrested him on a statement given by someone they thought of as an "accomplice" to the crime. How reliable are accomplice's statements? Don't most police take that kind of finger pointing with a huge amount of skepticism. Especially when the accomplice names someone who the police claim was never on the radar for committing the crime.

That Patrick should have been brought in for questioning is inarguable, IMO, but I do highly question that he should have been arrested before he was even questioned for the first time.

This is part of that grey area best left to legal minds. Amanda volunteered to attend the Questura. She was not formally a suspect when she made the claim. Due to the nature of the crime the police could not simply ignore her accusation against Patrick.

Even LJ admits the Perugia police ought to have followed up with Patrick by 6 am.

 

[stilicho]

Of course, I'm absolutely not arguing that someone COULD go from being of no status whatsoever in an inquiry to being arrested immediately. But I'd argue that the very few ways in which a person could be elevated in such a quick manner would be, for example, if their blood or semen DNA had been found on the murder victim (or murder weapon), or if there was very reliable and corroborated eyewitness testimony, or if explicit documentary evidence (e.g. emails, other recorded communications) clearly and directly implicating the person was discovered. I would argue that in nearly every other instance, the person in question should at least be given the chance to explain themselves voluntarily before they are formally placed under arrest.

There was. The crime took place in Amanda's home and she recognised Patrick because he was her employer.

 

[Fulcanelli]

It should be clear to everyone that you simply made another false claim about what was in the report.

This may be OK on PMF, but on JREF we have higher standards for evidence.

I would thank you not to make those sorts of accusations. I am no liar.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Not quite accurate for Fulcanelli to imply the lab is/was already accredited, then...

There is more in the report on the matter then in your quote.

 

[Fulcanelli]

There is nothing wrong with having the motivations in Italian - that is the language in which it was composed.

Well, there is if the reader doesn't speak Italian.

 

[LondonJohn]

Reading through London John's posts on Patrick's arrest, it dawned on me that the police arrested him on a statement given by someone they thought of as an "accomplice" to the crime. How reliable are accomplice's statements? Don't most police take that kind of finger pointing with a huge amount of skepticism. Especially when the accomplice names someone who the police claim was never on the radar for committing the crime.

That Patrick should have been brought in for questioning is inarguable, IMO, but I do highly question that he should have been arrested before he was even questioned for the first time.

I wholeheartedly agree with both your conclusion and your underlying rationale. Many other posters would find that to be a self-serving statement by me - but it does sound to me like you've gone through my arguments (and those of others) with an open mind and a decent dose of your own analysis. And I'd argue that you've arrived at the logically correct conclusion.

 

[LondonJohn]

There was. The crime took place in Amanda's home and she recognised Patrick because he was her employer.

Seriously? AK was reliable?? And the "corroboration" was that the accuser recognised the man she accused? Things are entering the realms of the surreal.

 

[Fulcanelli]

So I agreed that the best thing for police to do was to brink Lumumba into the station, but to give him the chance to attend voluntarily while checking out his position further.

No, it was not. As I tried to explain to you earlier, in Italy, if there is evidence for crimes sucgh as Mafia, terrorism, or violent sex crime an arrest has to be made immediately. Moreover, if you have evidence against him, then it's pointless questioning him as a witness since that statement cannot be used as evidence against him. Finally, an arrest is a requirement in order to get all the appropriate warrants to take forensic samples from him, to search his home and bar, to access his phone records etc. They needed access to all these things as soon as possible.

 

[Fulcanelli]

In this post, you appear to separate "being made a formal suspect" and "being arrested" - implying that the two are not only different, but by logical extension one can precede the other in time (or CAN SOMETIMES be simultaneous). Yet in a reply to me just a few posts earlier, you say:

They are different. One can be made a formal suspect and not immediately arrested, but only for none serious crimes. In the case of serious crimes, rendering suspect status must also lead to a formal arrest.

 

[el buscador]

This is part of that grey area best left to legal minds. Amanda volunteered to attend the Questura. She was not formally a suspect when she made the claim. Due to the nature of the crime the police could not simply ignore her accusation against Patrick.

Even LJ admits the Perugia police ought to have followed up with Patrick by 6 am.

If I am understanding you correctly, any person being questioned by Italian police can at any time make a claim that the s/he saw another person commit a crime and the police and prosecutor are forced under law to immediately run out and arrest the person accused? Without any other evidence? Or, I guess I should say, without any other evidence than something like an ambiguous text message? Surely, the police/prosecutor have more discretionary powers than that?

 

[LondonJohn]

This is part of that grey area best left to legal minds. Amanda volunteered to attend the Questura. She was not formally a suspect when she made the claim. Due to the nature of the crime the police could not simply ignore her accusation against Patrick.

Even LJ admits the Perugia police ought to have followed up with Patrick by 6 am.

Misrepresenting again, I'm afraid. "Even I" DON'T "admit" that the Perugia police ought to have followed up with Patrick by 6am. I made a concession on that point to deflect the emotive arguments about "leaving a murderer/rapist on the loose" - even if that extra period of Lumumba's "freedom" was precisely (and merely) 6am to 9am on the 6th November. "Admittance" implies that I agreed I was wrong. This isn't the case here.

Secondly, I (and others, I believe) would argue that even though AK correctly walked into the police station that evening as a volunteer, she should have been re-classified as a "formal suspect" by around 01.00 on the 6th - and perhaps even before she stepped into the interview room at about midnight. This is because RS had already substantially demolished her alibi by midnight - which, I'd argue, would immediately give the police justifiable cause to believe she was hiding something about her involvement. And even if that wasn't enough to re-classify her as a "formal suspect", then her denial of the meaning of the Lumumba text message should have been more than enough to swing the balance (even though, in hindsight, the police had misinterpreted the meaning of that message).

So, AK SHOULD have been a formal suspect by around 01.00 at the latest, in my view. And if that HAD occurred, then everything subsequent would have been taped, and she'd have had access to an attorney. And had she still gone on to "confess" and name Lumumba, she most certainly could and should AT THAT POINT have been placed under arrest.

 

[LondonJohn]

If I am understanding you correctly, any person being questioned by Italian police can at any time make a claim that the s/he saw another person commit a crime and the police and prosecutor are forced under law to immediately run out and arrest the person accused? Without any other evidence? Or, I guess I should say, without any other evidence than something like an ambiguous text message? Surely, the police/prosecutor have more discretionary powers than that?

At the risk of further mutual backslapping, I can't but agree with pretty much everything you've said here. And you manage to make your points far more succinctly and punchily than I ever could!

I would add one small point: Obviously, given that Lumumba WAS named by AK (albeit in a confused and sobbing fashion), the police clearly had a duty to follow that up as soon as practicable. But, as you also argue, I'd contend that this didn't give the police the right to pull him out of his house in front of his wife and child, arrest him, and put him in a Perugia police cell - all without so much as asking him for his version of events.