Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Moss]

Rather interesting that a failure to record the witness statements can ONLY be a deliberate action. Especially when some people try to have it both ways when it comes to sticking it to the police: Either they recorded them and then lied about it because it wouldn't make them look good, or they didn't record on purpose because they knew the way it was going to go.
I don't think that are the only options: Recording witness statements does not seem to be part of the standard police procedures, agreed? So actually someone has to realize that a) this interview is not a run of the mill witness interview and b) that they may want to record it for both future reference and because it might become contentious.
Which leaves us with the possibility of failure to recognize those two points as an equally valid explanation. Does not speak volumes about the professionalism of the interviewers.
But I still think that this lack of recordings can not be exclusively interpreted as an deliberate attempt to hide something. Don't attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.

 

[Fiona]

Firstly, did my eyes deceive me or did another Canada-based poster actually say in a post from a earlier today that he agreed the AK interrogations should have been recorded?

I think you are correct. Many people believe that every substantive contact with the police should be recorded. So what?

Second, it's slightly disingenuous (in my view) to keep falling back on the old standard that the interviews didn't need to be taped since AK was only a witness. As I've pointed out, there's a very rational argument to be made that AK shouldn't have been still officially categorised as a witness after around 1am on the 6th.

Sorry. I have missed the significance of 1 am. She was a suspect at 1:45 for obvious reasons. What happened at 1 am which should have given her that status at that point? Was there evidence which pointed to her as a criminal at that stage? I am not aware of it

And, even if you reject that argument, these interviews were taking place in the police station, with recording equipment self-evidently at hand (if not actually even set up in the interview room already). And since the police most definitely knew that they were dealing with a very high-profile murder case, and one with international dimensions, why would they not have pressed the record button?

Because that is not what they do: not here and not in Italy. They followed the standard procedure. You may not like the standard procedure but that is a different issue

After all, if they knew they were going to behave entirely properly, what would they possibly have to lose by doing so? They certainly would have had a lot to gain - not only in terms of demonstrable transparency, but also in terms of definitively capturing information that might be subsequently used in a criminal case*.

Nothing to gain and nothing to lose. They presumably follow the law and the guidance which is in place in their country: as the police do here

* For those who might be about to argue that no information from a witness statement can be used in trial, you'd be wrong. No self-incriminating information obtained in these circumstances can be used at trial. But witness statement information regarding the participation of others is perfectly permissible in trial. For example, if AK had instead said "Rudy Guede did it, and I was there too", then the part about her being there would not be admissible, but the part about Guede could have been used in his trial. And it's utterly illogical to think that the police wouldn't have preferred to capture such statements on audio/video if they had the easy opportunity to do so.

What is the basis for this in italian law? The situation in the uk is complicated and generally witness statements are not admissable: the witness must give the evidence in court and the witness statement can be used if they don't remember what they said to the police, so long as they agree that what they said earlier was true: but that is a special case and may not apply in england. Generally witness statements seem to be treated as hearsay and special rules for the admissablity of hearsay evdidence apply. That obstacle clearly will not apply in Italy so what is the situation?


Turning to the question of what is admissable I refer you again to the HSE site which is a very clear account of the expectations of how interviews should be conducted to comply with PACE provisions etc.

As an aside this description of how to deal with a witness who wishes to make a statement under caution is interesting (relates to Knox's decision to make such a statement). Seems quite in line with what happened.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/investigation/witness-questioning.htm

 

[Fiona]

This "black and white" opinionating, to me, sums up so much of what's wrong.

As I see it, there are some posters on here (let's call them "group 1") who have decided that AK (and often also RS) are innocent. And they use that as a starting off point to believe that each and every piece of evidence which points to their guilt must either be wrong or can be re-interpreted in an innocent way.

There are also some posters ("group 2") who make no firm claims as to AK's or RS's innocence. But these posters think they can identify troubling areas in the evidence which led to their convictions in the first trial. And these posters would like to see these issues properly addressed. Many of the posters in this category believe that at least some of these issues might be able to be successfully challenged on appeal, and that as a result the convictions might be overturned. I would categorise myself in this group (and I believe LashL does too, but I would neither presume to speak for her, nor would I want to be accused of sucking up to the mod.....).

And I'd argue that a similar differentiation can be made on the other side of the argument. In other words, there are some ("group 3") who believe that AK/RS definitely committed the murder, and that therefore any other interpretation of the evidence must by definition be wrong. And there are others ("group 4") who believe in AK/RS's guilt, but who believe that the evidence needs to be tested in order to ensure a safe conviction.

In my view, the only proper dialogue that has gone on has been between groups 1,2 and 4. I'd add that sometimes (again, in my view) group 1's trenchant belief in AK/RS's innocence can lead to a suspension of objectivity, but they can - and do - still raise very valid points about the safety of the convictions. Conversely, I can't see any way of engaging posters who fall into the "group 3" categorisation.........

I see your point: but I place myself in category 5: I believe in AK/RS/RG's guilt because I believe the evidence has been tested. In this country it is usual to accept a finding of guilt unless and until the finding is overturned at appeal. In this country the burden of proof is reversed at appeal (more or less). On this thread some seem to continue to talk as if the trial did not take place. It may be that this is because they have all accepted the Italian approach, which does not seem to reverse the burden of proof. But it is curious that those who do this do not accept any other part of the Italian system as superior, nor do they accord it much respect. That is my impression anyway.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

apology?

That is not an apology to Patrick.

What do you mean? In what sense is it not an apology to Patrick?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

What do you mean? In what sense is it not an apology to Patrick?

Amanda wasn't talking to Patrick, she was telling a Judge that she was sorry she'd caused Patrick trouble. At what point did she ever address that apology to Patrick himself?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Bruce, Chris and Charlie all link their blogs to this:

Rudy worked for the Perugian justice authorities. He murdered Meredith Kercher while under their employ and protection.

This is not a question of blowing someone's appeal. That comment was made in APR 2010 and there's no doubt that (given the fact that Amanda's high-powered PR campaign links to it) the authorities in Italy will be fully aware of its contents.

This was not anything other than Waterbury inventing something to create interest in his site. The others (Bruce, Chris, and Charlie) simply employ the lie and defend it to continue services directed towards their own sites. There is nothing lost in Waterbury accepting that he lied and the other three silently and peacefully disconnecting their own advocacy sites from his.

I have no intention of de-linking Mark's site. He is doing an excellent job. If Guede had been arrested and jailed after breaking into the school in Milan, he wouldn't have been roaming the streets, and he wouldn't have killed Meredith.

 

[Fulcanelli]

On another note -

How about the fact that the luminol prints were tested for blood and the tests were negative. The prosecution stated they were never tested. Then it is found in their notes that they were indeed tested. Now that's something to talk about.

And your source for this is 'whom'?

 

[christianahannah]

Just as a last correction, It's totally incorrect to say that AK's witness statements were inadmissible. It just so happens that they turned out to be unusable in trial because a) she incriminated herself (which is inadmissible) and that she incriminated Lumumba, who was subsequently exonerated.

AK's witness statements could have been used in any trial against Lumumba - if he'd subsequently been charged with the crime. And anything AK said throughout these entire interrogations could have been used against anyone else she might have implicated. The only things that would have been (and were) inadmissible were places where she incriminated herself.

Parts of Amanda's 5:45 statement were also used in Patrick's slander trial.

A question I have with regards to the slander trial of Patrick - why was it tried before (or during) the murder trial of Amanda was completed and a verdict rendered?

 

[Fulcanelli]

(b) you refuse to acknowledge that there are serious problems with the manner in which the investigation was conducted; (c) you refuse to acknowledge that there are serious problems with the manner in which the interrogations were conducted; (d) you refuse to acknowledge that the convictions of Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito are dangerous (using the terminology of Canadian law for your convenience); and (e) you are not at all interested in anything that challenges or questions those problems with these convictions.

b) What are these 'serious problems'? I will not contest that there may have been some small errors, or that certain things could have been done better or more efficiently, yet this is a fact of all long complicated investigations in cases as complex as this. However, your comment seems to imply, without explanation, that these mistakes are somehow 'fatal' to the case and exculpate Amanda and Raffaele.

c) What are these 'serious problems' with the interrogations, as you imply? They fully complied with Italian law. So, if you wish to maintain there were serious problems (again without explaining why) then your issue must be seen as one with the Italian legal system as a whole rather then this case specifically.

d) I fail to see how their conviction can be seen as dangerous (and why that only applies to them and not also Rudy Guede). They were given a full trial lasting 11 months. Just to get to trial the case had to leap multiple hurdles going through a range of courts. Knox and Sollecito faced a 10,000 page case file of evidence against them. This evidence included, behavioural, circumstantial, witness and forensic evidence against them as well as their own multiple lies they had told police and others. They were represented by the best lawyers and scientific evidence money can buy (not to mention an orchestrated PR and media campaign supporting them) to challenge that evidence and present a case on their behalf. They were then convicted by 8 judges in a unanimous verdict. And finally, the judges have had to release publicly a 400 + page report (which I might add, very few seem to have attempted to read) detailing every thought process, argument, logical step and piece of evidence that led them to that verdict. What is your case for labelling their conviction as being dangerous?

e) Anyone interested in 'truth' would be interested in entertaining evidence and arguments that challenge the convictions. But the requirement is, they have to be valid, they have to be logical, they have to fit the evidence and all the evidence (instead of ignoring whole swathes of evidence to shoe horn it in and they have to be based on an actual understanding of the case and the Italian system as well as not anchored in bias, prejudice, ethnocentrism, misinformation or unsupported assumptions. Personally, I have seen very little indeed from the apologists that meets these basic requirements.

Yet you seek to obtain information from the defence that could potentially compromise the pending appeals if it is posted prematurely.

Could you offer a 'just suppose' example scenario of how it could, in real terms, damage their appeal...in the court room?

And by the way..I think I should point out here, Waterbury, Wilkes and Fisher are not 'the defence'. The defence for Amanda and Raffaele are Italian lawyers and their Italian scientific experts in 'Italy'. Please do not confuse that which is part of propaganda/PR campaign and that which is the defence as being one and the same entity. They are not.

 

[Amazer]

Parts of Amanda's 5:45 statement were also used in Patrick's slander trial.

A question I have with regards to the slander trial of Patrick - why was it tried before (or during) the murder trial of Amanda was completed and a verdict rendered?

My guess it because it's a completely separate issue from the Meredith murder case.

o.i.w. The guilt or innocence of Amanda in the murder case has no bearing on whether or not she slandered Patrick with her false accusation.

 

[christianahannah]

Amanda wasn't talking to Patrick, she was telling a Judge that she was sorry she'd caused Patrick trouble. At what point did she ever address that apology to Patrick himself?

I would imagine she was advised by her attorneys as to the proper course on how to deliver an apology to Patrick (with the possibility of a slander trial occurring in the future).

I think there was a letter she had written to her attorneys during mid-November which addressed her confession against Patrick. It was submitted (I think) during her June 2009 trial testimony but I don't know if the contents of the letter were made public.

 

[LondonJohn]

b) What are these 'serious problems'? I will not contest that there may have been some small errors, or that certain things could have been done better or more efficiently, yet this is a fact of all long complicated investigations in cases as complex as this. However, your comment seems to imply, without explanation, that these mistakes are somehow 'fatal' to the case and exculpate Amanda and Raffaele.

c) What are these 'serious problems' with the interrogations, as you imply? They fully complied with Italian law. So, if you wish to maintain there were serious problems (again without explaining why) then your issue must be seen as one with the Italian legal system as a whole rather then this case specifically.

d) I fail to see how their conviction can be seen as dangerous (and why that only applies to them and not also Rudy Guede). They were given a full trial lasting 11 months. Just to get to trial the case had to leap multiple hurdles going through a range of courts. Knox and Sollecito faced a 10,000 page case file of evidence against them. This evidence included, behavioural, circumstantial, witness and forensic evidence against them as well as their own multiple lies they had told police and others. They were represented by the best lawyers and scientific evidence money can buy (not to mention an orchestrated PR and media campaign supporting them) to challenge that evidence and present a case on their behalf. They were then convicted by 8 judges in a unanimous verdict. And finally, the judges have had to release publicly a 400 + page report (which I might add, very few seem to have attempted to read) detailing every thought process, argument, logical step and piece of evidence that led them to that verdict. What is your case for labelling their conviction as being dangerous?

e) Anyone interested in 'truth' would be interested in entertaining evidence and arguments that challenge the convictions. But the requirement is, they have to be valid, they have to be logical, they have to fit the evidence and all the evidence (instead of ignoring whole swathes of evidence to shoe horn it in and they have to be based on an actual understanding of the case and the Italian system as well as not anchored in bias, prejudice, ethnocentrism, misinformation or unsupported assumptions. Personally, I have seen very little indeed from the apologists that meets these basic requirements.

"apologists"

No more need be said, in my opinion...

 

[christianahannah]

My guess it because it's a completely separate issue from the Meredith murder case.

o.i.w. The guilt or innocence of Amanda in the murder case has no bearing on whether or not she slandered Patrick with her false accusation.

Yes, I know, however the jury was able to hear parts of the 5:45 statement (which was ruled inadmissible for the murder trial) during the slander trial and before the murder trial was over.

 

[Amazer]

I would imagine she was advised by her attorneys as to the proper course on how to deliver an apology to Patrick (with the possibility of a slander trial occurring in the future).

I can imagine that's the case. I can imagine though that Patrick wouldn't consider that to be a apology. I wouldn't have if I were in his shoes.

I think there was a letter she had written to her attorneys during mid-November which addressed her confession against Patrick. It was submitted (I think) during her June 2009 trial testimony but I don't know if the contents of the letter were made public.

Same as above.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

CORRECTION

I need to correct an error with regard to the DNA evidence. I have been working from a translation to the index for the DNA results document, and it erroneously attributes a sample to Amanda's room when in fact the sample was taken in Filomena's room. This is sample 177, which shows the mixed DNA of Amanda and Meredith. This, rather than sample 176, is the mixed DNA from Filomena's room that Stefanoni testified about.

The following is from the google translation of Amanda's appeal:

Romanelli Filomena's room where, in the words of Dr. Stefanoni, there was "a widespread and intense brightness, so it was not detectable a particular form luminescent" - "brightness widespread, so it was not well defined at a point" were sampled only two Tracks:

1. Exhibit 176 - biological profile of Meredith
2. Exhibit 177 mixed profile where there are at least two contributors, including which Meredith-Amanda.

One reason I didn't see that there was an error in the translated index is because sample 176, as well as sample 177, seems to have a secondary profile corresponding to Amanda's markers, although these markers are not called on the electropherogram.

Here are the e-grams and a corrected summary of selected DNA results:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/rep_176_luminol_stain_filomena_room.gif
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/rep_176_luminol_stain_filomena_room_color.gif
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/rep_177_luminol_stain_filomena_room.gif
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/rep_177_luminol_stain_filomena_room_color.gif
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/selected_dna_results.pdf

Reference profies for Meredith and Amanda:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/kercher_profile.gif
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/knox_profile.gif

 

[Fulcanelli]

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Nothing needs to be proven to you. Who are you? You are demanding information? What give you that right?

PMF has absolutely no information that cannot be obtained by the general public. Your source is no better than Google. There is nothing at all wrong with that but don't come here acting like you possess some high power. You know nothing about this case that can't be found by my 10 year old using his computer.

About that, you are completely wrong, both in terms of information it has made public...and information it has not.

 

[Amazer]

Yes, I know, however the jury was able to hear parts of the 5:45 statement (which was ruled inadmissible for the murder trial) during the slander trial and before the murder trial was over.

You'd still have to prove that it effected the murder trial of Amanda. Not easy.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Of course I am not the defense. Why would anyone from the defense team come here to talk to you? The other information will become available eventually. Why do you defend Rudy? Do you really think he was a stand up guy before he murdered Meredith? I always wonder why you go to great lengths to protect Rudy's reputation. Even if you believe his lame story, he says he left a young woman to die. Do yourself a favor and take Rudy down from the PMF pedestal.

These people, who actually knew him, would say 'yes': http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=44154#p44154

And to say anyone here is defending Rudy Guede is a straw man. You will find nobody here who doesn't think that he was directly involved in Meredith's murder, was rightly convicted and is in jail where he belongs.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I would imagine she was advised by her attorneys as to the proper course on how to deliver an apology to Patrick (with the possibility of a slander trial occurring in the future).

Usually an attorney will advise a client facing serious charges to say nothing and let others speak on their behalf.

 

[Moss]

Gods below, I do hate references to futurological fruit preserves. I'm with Alice on that. I wish people would either put up the information they have or shut up about it until it can be published.