Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Bob001]

So what do you do if you get arrested abroad?

Somewhat off-topic, but inspired by many of the posts here, and it seems like the place to find the international legal eagles: In the U.S., we all know that if we are arrested we can request an attorney and refuse to answer questions from police (although a number of decisions seem to indicate that police can discuss the case with each other in the defendant's presence to try to get a reaction from him). But other countries do not have this protection. So if you are arrested in Italy, France, the UK (where defendants in custody are said to be "assisting authorities with their inquiries") and almost anywhere else, how do you behave? You say "I want a lawyer," and the cops say "Gee, I want a million euros." You say "Call the U.S. Embassy," and they say "We can't find the number." You say "I want this meeting recorded," and they say "Oh, we have good memories." You say "I want a translator," and they say "We'll make sure you understand." You say "I refuse to answer questions," and they say "Oh, yes you will." I'm not talking about some place where they torture you in a dungeon. I'm talking about a place where professional cops are following their system's rules. Suppose someone in Knox's situation when they started accusing her at her first interrogation had just kept repeating, "I had nothing to do with this and I have nothing else to say." What would the likely consequences have been? Personally, I can imagine saying almost anything to get out of the box and then trying to fix it later, which I recognize might be the worst thing I could do. Is there a right answer here?


[FONT=times new roman, serif]
[/FONT]

 

[Bruce Fischer]

There are no partial prints then?

All of the prints were partial. They were all from Rudy's left shoe.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Wasn't Rudy seen later in a nightclub, and the evidence suggest that Meredith's body was moved a few of hours after her death?

Meredith's body was not moved after her death.

The photos of Meredith's body show small round droplets of blood on her bare breasts. She was on her back, with her bra pushed above her breasts. She had an aspirating wound in her neck causing her blood to spray into the air and fall back down onto her body. The blood droplets landed on her bra and on her bare breasts, proving that her bra was removed before she died.


The evidence doesn't show that Meredith's body was moved hours after her death. I believe she was moved a few feet immediately after she was no longer able to fight. Guede moved her out of the pool of blood so he could sexually assault her. When she was still breathing, her bra was pulled up exposing her breasts. At this time blood was spraying into the air from the wound in her neck and falling back down onto the bra and her bare skin as Guede cut her bra off of her body and sexually assaulted her. Meredith's sexual assault was not staged by Amanda and Raffaele. Rudy Guede's DNA was found inside Meredith's body. That evidence would be impossible to stage.

Guede moved Meredith away from the large puddle of blood. Meredith was still bleeding profusely after Guede moved her. There was significant blood transfer onto the duvet.


I want to caution you before you view these photos. The photos are graphic in nature but are necessary to prove that significant amounts of Meredith's blood were transferred to the duvet.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/duvet.html

 

[LondonJohn]

Somewhat off-topic, but inspired by many of the posts here, and it seems like the place to find the international legal eagles: In the U.S., we all know that if we are arrested we can request an attorney and refuse to answer questions from police (although a number of decisions seem to indicate that police can discuss the case with each other in the defendant's presence to try to get a reaction from him). But other countries do not have this protection. So if you are arrested in Italy, France, the UK (where defendants in custody are said to be "assisting authorities with their inquiries") and almost anywhere else, how do you behave? You say "I want a lawyer," and the cops say "Gee, I want a million euros." You say "Call the U.S. Embassy," and they say "We can't find the number." You say "I want this meeting recorded," and they say "Oh, we have good memories." You say "I want a translator," and they say "We'll make sure you understand." You say "I refuse to answer questions," and they say "Oh, yes you will." I'm not talking about some place where they torture you in a dungeon. I'm talking about a place where professional cops are following their system's rules. Suppose someone in Knox's situation when they started accusing her at her first interrogation had just kept repeating, "I had nothing to do with this and I have nothing else to say." What would the likely consequences have been? Personally, I can imagine saying almost anything to get out of the box and then trying to fix it later, which I recognize might be the worst thing I could do. Is there a right answer here?


[FONT=times new roman, serif]
[/FONT]

Interesting post.

I'd say that there's a fairly solid rule of "caveat emptor" ("buyer beware") in these matters. In other words, it's incumbent upon anyone travelling to another country to learn about that country's customs, practices and legal code in advance. Of course, this is impractical and is almost never done, particularly with regard to the ramifications of committing criminal offences - and with some justification (unless one travels with the intention of committing crimes...).

If, for example, someone from the USA visits an Islamic state which practises Sharia law (e.g. Saudi Arabia), and that person commits a significant theft for which they are found guilty in court, that person can expect to have hands or feet amputated as punishment (although in practice this sentence probably wouldn't be carried out in this instance, in order to avoid diplomatic ructions). The traveller in question would have no defence by arguing that he/she were unaware that the law in Saudi Arabia treated convicted thieves in this way.

That's an extreme example, for sure. But what if a resident of the US state of Vermont travelled to Florida on holiday, and murdered someone while there. Imagine this person was subsequently found guilty of first degree murder. If the offence and trial had been in Vermont, the maximum sentence would be (I believe) life in prison without the possibility of parole. Whereas, in Florida, the mandatory sentence for first degree murder would be death by lethal injection or electrocution.

I'd say that if a person was ever accused of a crime while in a foreign country, that person's overwhelmingly best option would be to request access to a) their home country consulate or embassy, and b) a local lawyer. Their best option would be to say nothing until and unless at least one of those two conditions were fulfilled.

Incidentally, in this case, Amanda Knox would have, in hindsight, been potentially much better off if she had done one or both of these things as early as 2nd November 2007. She should most certainly have called the US consular authorities and asked for advice (an act which, after all, could not be seen in any way as indicative of culpability). I'd argue also that she should probably have engaged a local lawyer much earlier: even though this might superficially tend to indicate that she had something to hide, in fact it would have been totally with her rights and would also have been perfectly explainable down the line (if necessary) in the context of a person in a foreign land caught in the storm of a murder investigation.

I know one thing for sure: If I had been Amanda Knox's father or stepfather, and I'd got the call on 2nd November 2007, I would have advised her to do three things immediately in order: 1) call the US Consulate in Rome, and ask for their advice and for their representation if possible; 2) ask the US Consulate to put you in touch with a criminal lawyer in Perugia, so that you had someone familiar with the Italian legal code (and criminal law in general) to accompany you to police interviews and to explain the process; 3) Cooperate openly and fully with the police investigation (once (1) and (2) have been done), and don't try to leave Perugia.

 

[LondonJohn]

Somewhat off-topic, but inspired by many of the posts here, and it seems like the place to find the international legal eagles: In the U.S., we all know that if we are arrested we can request an attorney and refuse to answer questions from police (although a number of decisions seem to indicate that police can discuss the case with each other in the defendant's presence to try to get a reaction from him). But other countries do not have this protection. So if you are arrested in Italy, France, the UK (where defendants in custody are said to be "assisting authorities with their inquiries") and almost anywhere else, how do you behave? You say "I want a lawyer," and the cops say "Gee, I want a million euros." You say "Call the U.S. Embassy," and they say "We can't find the number." You say "I want this meeting recorded," and they say "Oh, we have good memories." You say "I want a translator," and they say "We'll make sure you understand." You say "I refuse to answer questions," and they say "Oh, yes you will." I'm not talking about some place where they torture you in a dungeon. I'm talking about a place where professional cops are following their system's rules. Suppose someone in Knox's situation when they started accusing her at her first interrogation had just kept repeating, "I had nothing to do with this and I have nothing else to say." What would the likely consequences have been? Personally, I can imagine saying almost anything to get out of the box and then trying to fix it later, which I recognize might be the worst thing I could do. Is there a right answer here?


[FONT=times new roman, serif]
[/FONT]

By the way, all the other countries you referred to (Italy, France, the UK) do in fact have the same (or very similar) "Miranda" rights as in the US. These rights must be communicated (in what's known as a police caution) to a suspect upon arrest, and may also be communicated to a person whom the police plan to question directly about a criminal offence prior to arrest*. I believe I'm also right to say that in all three of these countries you can also have an attorney accompany you to any police questioning if you wish.

* Incidentally, it's this sort of questioning under caution (but specifically not under arrest) which is referred to in the UK as "helping the police with their inquiries". The specific reason why the police would choose to issue such a caution to a person who has not yet been arrested is that if the person makes self-incriminating statements in the subsequent interview, these statements can then be used in court against him/her. Without a caution, any self-incriminating statements would be inadmissible in evidence.

 

[stilicho]

The laboratory workers don't have to know anything about it. Mignini and Stefanoni are friends who work for the same employer (the State of Italy), an employer that seems not to have a system of checks and balances in place for quality control. Is there anyone who supervises either of those two?

Someone in the Italian government must have been involved since they do not work in the same departments. Stefanoni's boss was Renato Biondo who is an officer with the State Police.

So did Mignini relay the scope document for this project to Biondo or was there an intermediary?

 

[Fiona]

Somewhat off-topic, but inspired by many of the posts here, and it seems like the place to find the international legal eagles: In the U.S., we all know that if we are arrested we can request an attorney and refuse to answer questions from police (although a number of decisions seem to indicate that police can discuss the case with each other in the defendant's presence to try to get a reaction from him). But other countries do not have this protection. So if you are arrested in Italy, France, the UK (where defendants in custody are said to be "assisting authorities with their inquiries") and almost anywhere else, how do you behave? You say "I want a lawyer," and the cops say "Gee, I want a million euros." You say "Call the U.S. Embassy," and they say "We can't find the number." You say "I want this meeting recorded," and they say "Oh, we have good memories." You say "I want a translator," and they say "We'll make sure you understand." You say "I refuse to answer questions," and they say "Oh, yes you will." I'm not talking about some place where they torture you in a dungeon. I'm talking about a place where professional cops are following their system's rules. Suppose someone in Knox's situation when they started accusing her at her first interrogation had just kept repeating, "I had nothing to do with this and I have nothing else to say." What would the likely consequences have been? Personally, I can imagine saying almost anything to get out of the box and then trying to fix it later, which I recognize might be the worst thing I could do. Is there a right answer here?


[FONT=times new roman, serif]
[/FONT]

So far as the Italian system is concerned the answers to you questions are in the link I gave you. There is also quite extensive discussion of the situation in the uk and in Italy in the previous thread. If you do not want to read what is provided to you then that is fine. But the law in the UK and in Italy is not that much different from the law in America and the safeguards for the accused are in some respects better in Italy

 

[stilicho]

Please give me one piece of evidence that proves Amanda or Raffaele locked that door. Just one will be fine.

The locked door is evidence. Didn't you know that?

 

[stilicho]

They stripped naked to do the cleanup.

Was that argument presented in court by the prosecutors?

 

[stilicho]

Incidentally, in this case, Amanda Knox would have, in hindsight, been potentially much better off if she had done one or both of these things as early as 2nd November 2007. She should most certainly have called the US consular authorities and asked for advice (an act which, after all, could not be seen in any way as indicative of culpability). I'd argue also that she should probably have engaged a local lawyer much earlier: even though this might superficially tend to indicate that she had something to hide, in fact it would have been totally with her rights and would also have been perfectly explainable down the line (if necessary) in the context of a person in a foreign land caught in the storm of a murder investigation.

Amanda Knox is a dream suspect. She could have been visited upon by the choir invisible and it wouldn't have stopped her from writing her admissible statement of 06 NOV 2007. She also shouldn't have lied to police during a murder investigation. When a suspect finds themselves in a position where they feel the need to lie then that's the exact point where they need to invoke their rights. It doesn't matter if it's a little lie or a big lie. It also doesn't matter what country you're in.

Right now, Amanda is desperately trying to back-pedal out of her lies about being struck by the police. That case has been postponed until OCT 2010.

 

[LondonJohn]

So far as the Italian system is concerned the answers to you questions are in the link I gave you. There is also quite extensive discussion of the situation in the uk and in Italy in the previous thread. If you do not want to read what is provided to you then that is fine. But the law in the UK and in Italy is not that much different from the law in America and the safeguards for the accused are in some respects better in Italy

But I think that the primary gist of his/her post was a wider discussion of how people travelling in a foreign land might feel confused and unsure of their rights, and how local police might be able to exploit this confusion to their advantage. Although I was taken aback slightly at his/her implicit suggestion that major European countries might practice some sort of totalitarian legal system which doesn't respect suspects' rights!!

And, incidentally, this issue raises a point that I've thought about before now, but never posted about. It's this: I think that Amanda Knox's legal team would be extremely well-advised to refrain 100% from criticising the Italian justice system - whatever private feelings they hold, and regardless of whether these feelings are in any way well-grounded. It doesn't take a PhD in psychology to realise that such criticisms are bound not to endear AK's team and their client to any people within the Italian legal establishment - judges, prosecutors AND even Italian members of her own defence team! The dreadful "Judge Heaney" debacle was an excellent demonstration of how not to do things....

Instead, I'd argue that it would be in AK's best interests for her team to actually praise the Italian legal system. In this way, they might reassure the courts that they were limiting their arguments to evidence, rather than arguing that the wider legal system was broken. Note that this is a different ball game from arguing police incompetence/malpractice - which I think might form part of their overall case at appeal. Obviously, any such accusations would also risk a backlash, but they have more chance of success in this area (I'd argue).

 

[LondonJohn]

Please give me one piece of evidence that proves Amanda or Raffaele locked that door. Just one will be fine.

The locked door is evidence. Didn't you know that?

This may be the most illogical counter-argument I've ever seen!

It's tantamount to someone saying "Show me evidence that Mr A shot Mr B", then someone else replying "Mr B's gunshot wound is evidence. Didn't you know that?".

Anyway, it brought some light relief to my evening.......

 

[Fiona]

But I think that the primary gist of his/her post was a wider discussion of how people travelling in a foreign land might feel confused and unsure of their rights, and how local police might be able to exploit this confusion to their advantage. Although I was taken aback slightly at his/her implicit suggestion that major European countries might practice some sort of totalitarian legal system which doesn't respect suspects' rights!!

I think that the second part of your paragraph is on the nail. I do not know if this person is unthinkingly xenophobic or whether he is fully aware of his use of implication. But either way it does not make me think well of his post. If it is the latter then the insult to our intelligence is not a very happy thing, either.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

but it cannot be straightened out in the morning

Personally, I can imagine saying almost anything to get out of the box and then trying to fix it later, which I recognize might be the worst thing I could do.

[FONT=times new roman, serif]
[/FONT]

This (feeling as if one can straighten things out in the morning) is one of the reasons that there are false confessions/accusations.

 

[LondonJohn]

This (feeling as if one can straighten things out in the morning) is one of the reasons that there are false confessions/accusations.

This is exactly the argument I make to my wife when she starts fretting about her unruly hair at 10 in the evening: "Don't worry, you can straighten it out in the morning".

 

[Bob001]

Yes, but...

No offense intended to anybody. But we learn here, for example, that the UK has no written constitution and that rights are bestowed by the government (even King John's signature on the Magna Carta was extracted at swordpoint), that France retains the Napoleonic Code which gives great power to an independent prosecutor, etc. Maybe in practice modern European states do strive to protect the rights of defendants. But many Americans, including Americans who have lived abroad, have the strong impression that foreign governments can unilaterally impose authority over individual citizens that would be unheard of or subject to lawsuit and appeal in the U.S. The fact that in Italy a defendant can apparently be locked up for a full year without being charged is one example; in the U.S., they can be held for a few hours, and even after arrest the defendant is guaranteed a "speedy" trial unless he chooses to waive that right. Bail is almost automatic except in the most terrible cases. And criminal trials don't take summer vacations. No one who has dealt with it up close would ever claim that the U.S. legal system is perfect. But my question had to do with how police abroad are required to treat suspects. Am I correct in inferring that everywhere in the western world, when a defendant requests an attorney he must be given one, and when he refuses to answer questions the police must stop asking them? If that's true, I am reassured.

 

[LondonJohn]

No offense intended to anybody. But we learn here, for example, that the UK has no written constitution and that rights are bestowed by the government (even King John's signature on the Magna Carta was extracted at swordpoint), that France retains the Napoleonic Code which gives great power to an independent prosecutor, etc. Maybe in practice modern European states do strive to protect the rights of defendants. But many Americans, including Americans who have lived abroad, have the strong impression that foreign governments can unilaterally impose authority over individual citizens that would be unheard of or subject to lawsuit and appeal in the U.S. The fact that in Italy a defendant can apparently be locked up for a full year without being charged is one example; in the U.S., they can be held for a few hours, and even after arrest the defendant is guaranteed a "speedy" trial unless he chooses to waive that right. Bail is almost automatic except in the most terrible cases. And criminal trials don't take summer vacations. No one who has dealt with it up close would ever claim that the U.S. legal system is perfect. But my question had to do with how police abroad are required to treat suspects. Am I correct in inferring that everywhere in the western world, when a defendant requests an attorney he must be given one, and when he refuses to answer questions the police must stop asking them? If that's true, I am reassured.

I fully appreciate where you're coming from. It's certainly true that various European nations have areas of their legal codes which might appear to be in places either more or less protective of suspects' rights than the US system. But, by and large, suspects are reasonably protected throughout all European Union nation states. There is an ongoing attempt within the EU to harmonise those areas of the separate national codes that deal with the rights of accused people, but I suspect it may take a very long time to enact...

As a slightly cheeky aside, you might want to telephone any of the lawyers for those under arrest at Guantanamo Bay to ask how long their clients have been held without trial.... (although the US Justice Department has magically sidestepped responsibility by declaring that the Guantanamo detention camps could specifically be designated as outside US legal jurisdiction!!)

 

[Bob001]

As a slightly cheeky aside, you might want to telephone any of the lawyers for those under arrest at Guantanamo Bay to ask how long their clients have been held without trial.... (although the US Justice Department has magically sidestepped responsibility by declaring that the Guantanamo detention camps could specifically be designated as outside US legal jurisdiction!!)

.
Guantanamo is something many Americans find deeply shameful and damaging to America's international interests, and both candidates in the last presidential election promised to shut it down if elected. We're still waiting . . .

 

[Fiona]

Might tell you something about the kind of assumption you are making about other systems though...

 

[Fulcanelli]

Hmmm, was that 1 degree of cleaning? 5? 25? 50 degrees? And where in the house? Was it 10 degrees on the floor in the hall? 2 degrees in the bathroom? Can you show specifics or photos of any degree of cleanup in any room of the house?

I suggest you read the Massei Report, instead of avoiding it at all costs. He outlines multiple areas that were clearly cleaned.