Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

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.

Ermmmm....except that the statements that were introduced in evidence in the slander trial did very much have a bearing on the murder trial, and thus this "side trial" can in no way be deemed a "completely separate issue".

Put it this way: How can the judicial panel have interpreted Amanda Knox's statements - as introduced in the slander trial - that she knew that Lumumba carried out the murder? After all, she didn't say that Lumumba told her he'd committed the murder after the event (the following morning, say). Her statements clearly imply an eyewitness perspective at some level.

And if the judicial panel could reasonably infer that AK's accusations were made from a perspective of being in the house at the time of the murder, it would not then be illogical to infer that AK was there, but that she deliberately then pointed the finger at the wrong man as the actual killer. After all, why would AK even place herself at the crime scene in the first place? Normally, false accusations are made with the collateral intention of distancing oneself as far from suspicion as possible.

In addition, the very fact that the judicial panel were being invited to judge AK as a liar, in the midst of a murder trial, could only be to her detriment. This was, in my view, an introduction of character defamation via the back door. I wonder if it will be argued as such in the appeal?

So, while it's fair to say that the narrow issue of AK falsely accusing Lumumba could be regarded as a separate matter, the manner in which she made the accusations (and the implications towards her of how she made the accusations) make this particular instance much more complicated (and, I'd argue, potentially damaging to justice).

 

[Fulcanelli]

Stilicho, your group would have more credibility in your arguments if you refrained from calling highly educated people like Mark Waterbury and Steve Moore, names like stupid or idiot.

It is perfectly credible to call people who repeatedly say stupid things stupid. Intelligence doesn't eliminate stupidity I'm afraid. History and every day life proves the rule.

 

[christianahannah]

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

I agree. My intention is not to bash the jurors, who I believe take their positions very seriously, but rather to understand why certain practices are done.

And, I agree with you about the apology. It would have been nice had Amanda apologized to Patrick personally. If she had would that have negated the slander trial?

 

[LondonJohn]

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

"....information it has made public...and information it has not"

Huh? Does PMF have a special conduit to a secret stash of evidence that no other members of the public has seen? Or does "information" here actually mean interpretation of publicly-available information?

And by "interpretation" I don't just mean the hallowed translation of the Massei Report - although I include that. I also mean all the other interpretations of publicly-available evidence such as footprint analysis and graphology (oops, I mean forensic handwriting analysis).

By the way, I and a crack team of dedicated volunteers are about to start work on translating the Massei Report from the original Italian into the Navajo language. I'm certain that this translation will be highly anticipated (I may even issue a press release), and I'm equally certain that it will have a very important bearing on the case. I'd advise everyone to wait until they read the Navajo translation before passing any comment or opinion whatsoever on this case.

 

[Fiona]

Ermmmm....except that the statements that were introduced in evidence in the slander trial did very much have a bearing on the murder trial, and thus this "side trial" can in no way be deemed a "completely separate issue".

Put it this way: How can the judicial panel have interpreted Amanda Knox's statements - as introduced in the slander trial - that she knew that Lumumba carried out the murder? After all, she didn't say that Lumumba told her he'd committed the murder after the event (the following morning, say). Her statements clearly imply an eyewitness perspective at some level.

And if the judicial panel could reasonably infer that AK's accusations were made from a perspective of being in the house at the time of the murder, it would not then be illogical to infer that AK was there, but that she deliberately then pointed the finger at the wrong man as the actual killer. After all, why would AK even place herself at the crime scene in the first place? Normally, false accusations are made with the collateral intention of distancing oneself as far from suspicion as possible.

In addition, the very fact that the judicial panel were being invited to judge AK as a liar, in the midst of a murder trial, could only be to her detriment. This was, in my view, an introduction of character defamation via the back door. I wonder if it will be argued as such in the appeal?

So, while it's fair to say that the narrow issue of AK falsely accusing Lumumba could be regarded as a separate matter, the manner in which she made the accusations (and the implications towards her of how she made the accusations) make this particular instance much more complicated (and, I'd argue, potentially damaging to justice).

The witness statement was not admissable: the testimony of the police officers and of amanda with respect to that interrogation were of course admissible (presumably again on similar grounds to those which lead to the same rules in the UK). So how was it detrimental?

 

[Danceme]

I am sure it was just an oversight that you missed this part:

"The above theory of the crime suggests the following:

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

Mary, that is not at all how Mark presents this "theory". He does not state that what we are about to read is a "theory". He opens the article with his little bit about Sixth Sense and Psycho then writes this;

"Now, the Meredith Kercher murder case has a series of inevitable unexpecteds that are fully worthy of the phrase. They turn your stomach every bit as much as Psycho. In just the first of these, there is striking evidence that is absolutely devastating to the case against Amanda and Raffaele, and that begins to make the case against the Perugian justice authorities themselves.

Rudy Guede, whom the overwhelming evidence points to as the murderer of Meredith Kercher, was a police informant.

In an article in the British newspaper The Daily Express, Bob Graham reveals the stunning news that Rudy Guede committed an entire series of crimes in the month before the murder of Meredith Kercher, crimes that were deliberately ignored by Italian authorities."

Bob Graham writes the following;
"But robberies carried out by small-time drug dealer Rudy Guede were ignored by Italian authorities, raising suspicions that he was a police informer."

He indicates these crimes raise suspicion but he nowhere blatantly says they are true, as Waterbury does. Waterbury states it as fact. Here are a few more quotes from Mark;

"Rudy Guede, the murderer of Meredith Kercher, in all probability worked for and was protected by someone in Perugia."

"All of this provides powerful evidence that Rudy was an informant."

"That is where he committed most of his crimes while under protection."

"I don’t mean that the entire Perugian justice system was involved, but just some combination of agents within it."

"But one of the shining lights of this group, and one who is unquestionably involved, is PM Giuliano Mignini."

He only then proceeds to develop his "theory", based on those above quoted "facts".

"The new information that Rudy was an informant is a kind of missing link. We don’t have all the data yet, but it enables us to better understand things that have puzzled us all along. Now we can begin to connect the dots. When you connect the dots, you tie together the pieces so that you can see the big picture from the little parts.

We’re going to develop a theory of the crime. I’m not talking about the murder itself. I’m talking about the crime of railroading Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito."

Mark emphatically states several times that Rudy was a police informant based purely on suggestion in a news article. I think it's a plausible scenario, that he did aid the police perhaps in matters related to illegal drug trade, but your argument I quoted above was that Mark was stating a theory. He wasn't. He made numerous unproven assertions as facts to create drama for his "theory" which he invented much further down in the article.

Of course you are not part of the defense? You most certainly give the impression at times that you are part of the defense.

I have never given any impression that I am part of the defense. That statement is laughable. I am just a guy that did some research. This is just JREF. This discussion board isn't really that important. I think some people have lost their sense of reality here. This is a discussion board on the web. Nothing more. I type comments on the board while watching television.

For the record, I did excellent research and several highly credible people with far more intelligence than myself provided me with the information used to form my opinion. My position is very solid. I know that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent.

Okay, enough for now, The Nanny is coming back on!

I'm sorry Bruce, but you do give the impression you are somehow privy to everything the defense has and that in effect you and your website are in fact part of the defense. You consistently make reference to having the complete case file, and that you are privy to information not in the public realm and from which you are not allowed to quote or publish for others to read.
I know you are denying you give the impression you are part of the defense but that's exactly the impression you consistently seem to be striving to make, perhaps not in the sense of being one of Amanda's legal team, but certainly in terms of her defense in the public eye. Why else would you constantly infer such inside knowledge?

AK's witness statements could have been used in any trial against Lumumba - if he'd subsequently been charged with the crime.

That's actually quite a scary thought. If Patrick's alibi had lacked sufficient strength he would no doubt be rotting in jail now due to these exact statements, which Amanda did not seem to have any intention of retracting.

 

[s_pepys]

woah. my head hurts! interesting reading though. well done all on every side.

 

[Fulcanelli]

For starters, in my view, it is inexcusable that the questioning of Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito was not taped via audio and/or video. There is no excuse for that, and the lack of audio or video serves only to permit the Perugia police to say whatever they want. These interrogations did not occur in 1930 but in 2007 - and the Perugia police were perfectly well equipped to record them, but they either made a deliberate decision not to do so, or they made a deliberate decision to say that they did not do so. Either way, it's inexcusable and only serves the purposes of the Perugia police, and does not serve the ends of justice.

Are 'witnesses' recorded as regular policy in Canada, the US or the UK?

And by the way, recordings are not admissible in Italian courts under Italian law in any case. This exists to protect the witness.

Secondly, it is inexcusable that the Perugia police did not seek or obtain DNA samples from the tenants of the cottage and known visitors to the cottage. I cannot even imagine why any objective person would argue that this should not have been done. There are multiple "unknown" samples found at the cottage, but the Perugia police didn't even try to identify or eliminate them by means that were readily available to them. No telling whether this is incompetence or deliberate malfeasance. Either way, it's wrong and the continuing failure of the Perugia police to ignore the obvious is inexcusable.

Why were these needed...can you give one piece of evidence for example, where the DNA of others from the cottage was required? What are these 'unknown' DNA samples you are referring to? And by the way, you are also aware that all the other housemates were able to prove they were nowhere near the cottage that night? What is the important information that you feel this lapse on the ILE's part would have revealed, had they have done what you insist, that would exculpate Amanda and Raffaele?

And don't even get me started about the slander bit, which would never in a thousand years even be considered in Canada as a justiciable matter.

On other words, you have a problem with the Italians because their legal system and laws are not like 'yours'?

Just out of curiosity...is perjury a crime in a Canadian court? Is 'wasting police ' time also a chargeable offence in Canada? Can people be sued for libel in Canada?

But the reality is that there is no legitimate reason for the Perugia police to have made a conscious decision to avoid video during Ms. Knox's questioning. There is no excuse for the Perugia police not to tape the events in the circumstances, particularly since video of the events would provide absolutely clear and unambiguous evidence as to the "voluntariness" of any statements made, which would only help the police/prosecution if the statements were actually voluntary (so who really believes that they would forego that opportunity?)

I refer you to my response on this matter above.

failure to properly secure the scene;

How was the scene not properly secured?

failure to adhere to proper investigation techniques

Under 'who's' rules? Not like how they do it Canada you mean?

failure to collect or analyze relevant forensic evidence properly

As far as I'm aware, they have everything they needed.

failure to utilize appropriate experts to assess the forensic evidence gathered

I'm sorry? Can you please elaborate on which experts they lacked?

possible (probable) coercive and unconstitutional interrogations

And the 'evidence' for this is 'what'?

failure to advise the accused of their right to counsel in a timely fashion;

Italian law was fully complied with.

questionable motives by the prosecution throughout

Please elaborate.

inappropriate "trial by media" in advance of the trial

Hardly an abnormal occurrence. This happens with a good many high profile cases.

locking up suspects for a year before charging them with an offence - permitted or not by the vagaries of Italian law, this should be unconscionable to any right-thinking person;

You are comparing apples with oranges. When Amanda and Raffaele appeared in court two days later their suspect status and arrest was confirmed. That is, to all intents and purposes, the Italian equivalent of being charged. And from that point onwards, that status had to be confirmed via multiple courts.

The fact that they were kept in jail, is the exception rather then the norm. Most suspects are allowed out of jail under restricted freedoms or house arrest until they are excluded from the investigation or referred to trial. In their case, they were remanded because they were deemed a flight risk, could tamper with witnesses and evidence and because the sexual element combined with violence of the crime, is deemed by the Italian system as presenting a real and present danger of of their re-offending. And it is not uncommon for prisoners to be remanded for a year or even more, while awaiting trial in the UK or US.

prosecution leaking documents to the media before trial

I'm sorry, most of the leaks came from the defence. And when one individual working for the prosecution was caught leaking, he was sacked from the case.

prosecutors/police celebrating their "solving" of the crime both inappropriately and prematurely in the media

So? And to call it 'celebrating' is hyperbole.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Then, as I have stated before - the accusations against Rudy should not be made either. Unless we're just going to disregard the burden of proof for those accusing Rudy of being a criminal. (interesting that there is a burden of proof to convict Amanda/Raffaele, and yet not one to accuse Rudy of having been a violent criminal in the past. And, yes, I understand you're going to counter by claiming that you're not accusing Rudy of anything. However, you are definitely not discouraging people from making that accusation - you are discouraging people from backing up that accusation. The "right thinking" response would be to encourage both sides to drop the issue - one side because it's not yet proven, the other side because it could (I don't really see how it affects the evidence against Raffaele/Amanda) interfere with the appeal)

Yes indeed. And it also must be remembered that Guede 'also' has upcoming appeal.

 

[Fulcanelli]

The thing that concerns me about Dr. Waterbury's theory is the lack of secondary evidence of this crime spree by Rudy. I can see that if he was a police informant that there might be primary evidence missing (Rudy arrested or charged). However, I would still expect that if it was fairly common knowledge that Rudy was responsible for these things and the victims or others knew about it, there would still be some level of outcry or complaints about the police handling of the situation. I am also surprised that the Italian press has not said anything about this and it is only a UK paper that has brought it up.

It is hard for the press to resist a scoop or a scandal. I expected other news outlets in Italy to jump on this information that was presented by Bob Graham and investigate the matter further. If I were a member of the Italian press I would not let a UK paper (or blog) remain front and center on this story.

I can understand timing the release of such information to go along with the appeal hearing but I have doubts that the Italian press is going to do the same. If the story is true, somebody is going to lose out on a big scoop by sitting on it. I thought Dr. Waterbury's article was extremely well written and his lead in with references to Psycho and The Sixth Sense was a nice touch. However, my feeling is the information he is basing his theory on may not be as solid as he hopes.

The Italian press has ignored it because they know it's complete nonsense.

 

[Fulcanelli]

She had a lawyer when she was questioned as a suspect: that is what the law requires and that is what happened

During her first (and only) interrogation as a suspect, she had TWO lawyers present in fact. And, it was also recorded

 

[Fulcanelli]

Stilicho,

This is not the first time I have heard words such as those quoted above from you. If you do not have any evidence that Dr. Waterbury is paid, you should withdraw this claim immediately.

Well, his book publication should pay him quite well, don't you think?

 

[Fulcanelli]

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.

You'll find it in one of the PMF discussion threads somewhere (quoted in a media report).

Perhaps Charlie might post it up here for you if you ask him.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Huh? Does PMF have a special conduit to a secret stash of evidence that no other members of the public has seen? Or does "information" here actually mean interpretation of publicly-available information?

Of course. Did you imagine Wilkes, Waterbury and Fisher had the monopoly?

 

[Bob001]

Are 'witnesses' recorded as regular policy in Canada, the US or the UK?

And by the way, recordings are not admissible in Italian courts under Italian law in any case. This exists to protect the witness.

In the U.S., at least, there are thousands of city, county and state police departments that function independently with their own procedures (a key difference between between the U.S. system and many foreign systems, where the police and the prosecutors are employed by the national government). Obviously not everything everybody says to every cop is recorded. But when the police bring someone into a station for questioning, particularly for a major crime, it is routine for big-city departments to videotape the conversation, partly to preserve what the witness/suspect says and partly to protect the police from false allegations of abuse. (TV airwaves here are full of video snippets of dumb criminals trying to talk their way out of trouble.) The murder in Perugia was likely one of their most terrible crimes in many years. The fact that police didn't record statements in the station by the victim's roommate who (purportedly) discovered the body is so unprofessional that it raises questions about the competence of everything else they did.

And do you really mean recorded statements can't be introduced at trial even when they might be used to support the defendant's position or discredit the prosecution? In other words, the police can claim the defendant said anything they want and he has no tools to prove otherwise? That can't be right.


[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

 

[Fiona]

In the U.S., at least, there are thousands of city, county and state police departments that function independently with their own procedures (a key difference between between the U.S. system and many foreign systems, where the police and the prosecutors are employed by the national government). Obviously not everything everybody says to every cop is recorded. But when the police bring someone into a station for questioning, particularly for a major crime, it is routine for big-city departments to videotape the conversation, partly to preserve what the witness/suspect says and partly to protect the police from false allegations of abuse. (TV airwaves here are full of video snippets of dumb criminals trying to talk their way out of trouble.) The murder in Perugia was likely one of their most terrible crimes in many years. The fact that police didn't record statements in the station by the victim's roommate who (purportedly) discovered the body is so unprofessional that it raises questions about the competence of everything else they did.

And do you really mean recorded statements can't be introduced at trial even when they might be used to support the defendant's position or discredit the prosecution? In other words, the police can claim the defendant said anything they want and he has no tools to prove otherwise? That can't be right.


[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

Interesting. I had understood that witness statments were not recorded in many places in america, including big cities. But that being the case it still says nothing whatsoever about the professionalism of the police in other jurisdictions. It is not normal practice in this country and it is not normal practice in Italy. Once again you assume that what is done in america is the only right way to do things.

I would vehemently object to being recorded if I was giving a witness statement to the police. I do not know why you don't mind being recorded in that way and I do: because I have to put up with CCTV surveillance nearly everywhere I go because my fellow citizens like the idea: I think that meets much more resistance in america than it does here: quite right too! I wonder why this is different in your mind.

As to your final paragraph: again, witness statements are not normally admissible here whatever form they take. They are normally considered to be hearsay. Direct testimony is preferred in most circumstances. I would have thought that would also be true in america. However neither your system's approach to hearsay evidence nor mine is similar to that in Italy. So that part does not help us

 

[Fulcanelli]

In the U.S., at least, there are thousands of city, county and state police departments that function independently with their own procedures (a key difference between between the U.S. system and many foreign systems, where the police and the prosecutors are employed by the national government). Obviously not everything everybody says to every cop is recorded. But when the police bring someone into a station for questioning, particularly for a major crime, it is routine for big-city departments to videotape the conversation, partly to preserve what the witness/suspect says and partly to protect the police from false allegations of abuse. (TV airwaves here are full of video snippets of dumb criminals trying to talk their way out of trouble.) The murder in Perugia was likely one of their most terrible crimes in many years. The fact that police didn't record statements in the station by the victim's roommate who (purportedly) discovered the body is so unprofessional that it raises questions about the competence of everything else they did.

And do you really mean recorded statements can't be introduced at trial even when they might be used to support the defendant's position or discredit the prosecution? In other words, the police can claim the defendant said anything they want and he has no tools to prove otherwise? That can't be right.


[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

However, the recorded of witness statements are not a requirement under 'law' in the US. As you have said, those departments that do, do so for their own convenience and many others don't record witness statements. Therefore, whether one thinks recording witness statements is a good idea or not, it is going too far to slate and condemn the Italians for not doing so. And remember also, in this case, Amanda wasn't 'brought in' to the police station. Raffaele was asked if he could come in and Amanda decided to go with him. They started to ask her some questions in the waiting room.

And yes, recording of witness statements cannot be heard in court. There are rare exceptions, rare exceptions, but for that to happen the onus is on either the prosecution or the defence to prove the requirement, for which certain criteria must be met (and no, I don't know what those are but an Italian lawyer may be able to tell you). This is in fact, a good part of the reason why Italian police don't bother recording witness statements.

And I'll just repeat here, the one time one of them 'was' interrogated as a suspect, that was recorded. Here's an excerpt from Amanda's interrogation in December, 2007:

http://www.video.mediaset.it/video/.../71545/rewind---delitto-di-perugia---iii.html

 

[Bob001]

I would vehemently object to being recorded if I was giving a witness statement to the police. I do not know why you don't mind being recorded in that way ...

Easy answer: To prevent the police from lying about or misinterpreting what I said. What prevents the police from claiming that during your "witness" account you suddenly blurted out "I did it, you got me, I'm so sorry?" Even if you actually spoke those words, would it be a confession to the crime, or would it mean you just spilled your coffee on the nice sergeant's desk? A tape would resolve the question. If I were being questioned in a police station, I would put my own recorder on the desk even if the police didn't turn on theirs.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I just need to clear something up here, because it's causing a lot of confusion. The matter of 'criminal slander' for which Amanda was charged and convicted. It wasn't actually 'criminal slander', rather that's the Anglo loose translation of it, which is accurate, but isn't (in the sense that it makes people think of 'libel', it is not). It's been translated this way so people can understand it, but really all it's done is create confusion and grey area.

What Amanda was actually charged and convicted for was 'Calunnia', the correct translation for which is Calumny which in the Italian legal sense as decribed by Yummi on PMF means:

Calunnia is reporting a false incriminating information about a crime.
Diffamazione is an attack on somebody's reputation.

The two cases are very different.
In my opinion it is better not to use the words "slander" and "libel", since do not fit the Italian criminal jurisprudence: they are too vague and have a more civil context.

 

[Amazer]

I just need to clear something up here, because it causing a lot of confusion. The matter of 'criminal slander' for which Amanda was charged and convicted. It wasn't actually 'criminal slander', rather that's the Anglo loose translation of it, which is accurate, but isn't (in the sense that it makes people think of 'libel', it is not). It's been translated this way so people can understand it, bit really all it's done is create confusion and grey area.

What Amanda was actually charged and convicted for was 'Calunnia', the correct translation for which is Calumny which in the Italian legal sense as decribed by Yummi on PMF means:

Thank you, that certainly clears things up quit a bit.