Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Magister]

This thread is addictive but equally it is a complete waste of time
Despite all the arguments raging back and forth I cannot see that anyone here has changed his/her opinion as to the guilt of AK and RS.
Noone attended the trial.
Noone knows exactly what happened at the Questora on the 5/6 Nov 2007.
Some background information.....
The Carabinieri is a para military force answerable to the Ministry of Defence.
They fought in the front line in both world wars.
They are of course involved in hunting down the Mafia, whose tentacles extend into the Berlusconi government and even into the Court of Cassazione, the Supreme Court.
At the G8 Summit in Genoa in 2001 members of the Carabinieri were accused of great brutality against protesters and were subsequently jailed, but only after the first court's decision was overruled on appeal.
They are going to be tough interrogators.
The evidence will not be properly tested until all the appeals process has been completed.
On a side note re the defence team....correct me if I am wrong...
Luciano Ghirga is a panel lawyer.
Carlo Dalla Vedova is primarily a corporate lawyer, hired later I believe as he spoke English.
Neither can possibly be described as a top criminal lawyer.
Giulia Bongiorno for RS is also a member of the Italian parliament and because of her attendance there from Mon-Thurs the Court only sat 2 days a week.

 

[Fulcanelli]

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.

Nothing. But it would be useless. Because, the individual concerned will state very loudly afterwards I never said that and it would be useless to the police because they won't even have a signed statement from you showing that you did.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Guilietta Comodi for RS is also a member of the Italian parliament and because of her attendance there from Mon-Thurs the Court only sat 2 days a week.

You mean Bongiourno

Manuella Comodi is one of the prosecutors.

 

[Danceme]

Bob001, I thought witness statements cannot be used against you if they are self-incriminating. If this is the case it doesn't matter what they said you said. You would have to have been "read your rights" before anything you say can be used against you.

 

[Bob001]

... 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. ...

To clarify, I don't think recorded "witness" statements can be used in court as evidence against someone else (they can't be cross-examined), and how a defendant's own words can be used against him before he received a Miranda warning is also limited. But what I am getting at is where the police say the defendant said "X," and the defendant says, "I never said that" or "That's not what I meant" or "I misunderstood your language" or "That's just the hypothesis you told me to talk about" or "The police beat me up and I was scared." Even if the defendant signs a statement, the document doesn't show what preceded the signature. It could have been "Just sign this, it's just a formality, then you can go." Or it could have been "Sign here or you'll die here." A recording protects the police when they are following the rules and strengthens the impact of a voluntary confession, and it protects the defendant if the cops go rogue. To say the cops aren't legally required to make a recording doesn't mean they shouldn't, and it doesn't eliminate reasonable questions about what really happened in the back room.

It also sounds as if your systems make a bigger, more formal distinction between "witness" and "suspect" than here. In the U.S., when the police investigate a major crime, they pretty much assume everybody is a "suspect" until they determine otherwise, particularly since the majority of murders are committed by people who know their victim. If you, as a witness, reported that your child hadn't come home from school, the police would want to know where you and everybody in your house were and what you were doing at the relevant time, and if you changed your story you would face increased scrutiny. In the Perugia case, everybody who had access to the apartment and everybody who had ever met the victim would have been (or at least should have been) a suspect. It's impossible to believe that the police didn't consider the victim's roommate who found the body a suspect from the first minute, even if they didn't apply the label.

 

[Fulcanelli]

To say the cops aren't legally required to make a recording doesn't mean they shouldn't, and it doesn't eliminate reasonable questions about what really happened in the back room.

Then, you should apply your complaint to all justice systems, since it is not a legal requirement in any justice system I know of, rather then simply picking on the Italians in one specific case.

It also sounds as if your systems make a bigger, more formal distinction between "witness" and "suspect" than here. In the U.S., when the police investigate a major crime, they pretty much assume everybody is a "suspect" until they determine otherwise, particularly since the majority of murders are committed by people who know their victim.

Yes, in the US and UK the term 'suspect' is simply a 'descriptive' term and one can be a suspect or 'suspected' without any actual evidence. In Italy, it's not a label and doesn't designate 'suspicion', it's a LEGAL designation and has power. One must have evidence against an individual in order to make them a suspect, being 'suspicious' of them is not enough, and if they have evidence against that individual they 'have' to make them a suspect. A court must confirm someone as a suspect and a suspect has different legal rights and requirements to a witness. For example, as soon as the police make a witness into a suspect they must halt questioning immediately. The police can never question that individual in regard to that offence ever again. From that point, they can only be interrogated by a judge and only in the presence of a lawyer and it must be recorded. Their suspect status must be made public and the individual in question informed (people cannot be made suspects in secret). If one is arrested, then one is automatically a suspect.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Originally Posted by Amazer View Post
"Of course you are not part of the defense? You most certainly give the impression at times that you are part of the defense."

Bruce: 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?"



Bruce: My comments were light hearted of course. Stilicho was on a power trip and I was simply putting some things into perspective for him.

Many people have worked very hard to successfully expose the injustice done to Amanda and Raffaele. I, along with many others, am fully committed to spreading the truth about this case. We will continue to do so until Amanda and Raffaele are fully exonerated.

 

[LondonJohn]

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

This seems to me to be an extremely misleading post. Fulcanelli seems to be dealing here (unless I've interpreted it wrongly) with the very narrow (and artificially narrow) question of actually playing recordings (audio or video) of witness interviews in a courtroom. Of course this is almost unheard of. It's also almost unheard of for audio/video of defendants' interviews under arrest to ever be played in a courtroom.

But this is not the point. The point is that such recordings exist to provide a backstop level of proof of what was said (and sometimes also what was done) in these interviews. This is to prevent either misunderstandings, distortions or wholesale inventions - primarily by the police. The recordings themselves form part of the evidence bundle, but are rarely - if ever - aired in a courtroom. But the transcripts are, and the recordings serve to verify the transcripts. So to say that the Italian police don't "bother" to record any witness statements partly because they know those recordings wouldn't be played in court seems.............strange.

Also, this whole issue of whether AK went voluntarily to the police station on the night of the 5th, or whether she was summoned there, still bemuses me. See, I think that it's not the action of a culpable person (here, Amanda Knox) to place themselves voluntarily in a police station at any time during a police investigation into a crime which they know they have committed. I believe that a culpable person would try to stay as far away from the police as they possibly could, without looking deliberately evasive or uncooperative. And I've seen some people counter that argument by saying that actually she was summoned there by Sr Gobbi. Which is it? And if she did attend voluntarily, why would she do so if she knew she was involved in the crime? Was Amanda Knox - in some people's opinions - so cunning and arrogant that she thought it appropriate to engage in a high-risk double bluff like this?

 

[LondonJohn]

Then, you should apply your complaint to all justice systems, since it is not a legal requirement in any justice system I know of, rather then simply picking on the Italians in one specific case.



Yes, in the US and UK the term 'suspect' is simply a 'descriptive' term and one can be a suspect or 'suspected' without any actual evidence. In Italy, it's not a label and doesn't designate 'suspicion', it's a LEGAL designation and has power. One must have evidence against an individual in order to make them a suspect, being 'suspicious' of them is not enough, and if they have evidence against that individual they 'have' to make them a suspect. A court must confirm someone as a suspect and a suspect has different legal rights and requirements to a witness. For example, as soon as the police make a witness into a suspect they must halt questioning immediately. The police can never question that individual in regard to that offence ever again. From that point, they can only be interrogated by a judge and only in the presence of a lawyer and it must be recorded. Their suspect status must be made public and the individual in question informed (people cannot be made suspects in secret). If one is arrested, then one is automatically a suspect.

It's a touch disingenuous to say that once a person is deemed a "suspect" in Italy, they can only be questioned by a "judge". Given that Fulcanelli knew he was giving a reply to someone who didn't know the finer points of the Italian justice system, I can only assume that the word "judge" was used here to give the impression of a judge in the UK/US meaning of the word. In other words, a disinterested and impartial figure who hears cases in a court of law.

But, as Fulcanelli well knows, "judge" in this scenario actually means prosecuting magistrate - who is effectively (within the Italian system) acting in the capacity of a higher form of investigator. So the interrogation can (and does) still continue once a person is deemed "suspect" - only it's not the police doing the interrogating at this point but a prosecuting magistrate acting as a kind of "higher form of police officer".

(I also think that the phrase "The police can never question that individual in regard to that offence ever again" might further convey the erroneous impression that a suspect can no longer be probed by law enforcement agents of any kind, but that's another matter.......)

 

[Fulcanelli]

But this is not the point. The point is that such recordings exist to provide a backstop level of proof of what was said (and sometimes also what was done) in these interviews. This is to prevent either misunderstandings, distortions or wholesale inventions - primarily by the police. The recordings themselves form part of the evidence bundle, but are rarely - if ever - aired in a courtroom. But the transcripts are, and the recordings serve to verify the transcripts. So to say that the Italian police don't "bother" to record any witness statements partly because they know those recordings wouldn't be played in court seems.............strange.

No. If this was the case, if it were a real 'need', then it would be made LAW that all witness interviews be recorded. That isn't the reason they are recorded at all, if they are recorded. If they are recorded, it is so the police have a reference tool to go back over should they need to...to help them further their investigation, not as some insurance policy in court. I'm sure, it no doubt occurred to police who 'do' record witness statements that it may have that added bonus, but it is not the primary reason. And you speak of this like it's some norm. It isn't. Police don't record witnesses statements in the UK (and you are in the UK) except in rare exceptions. In fact, I myself gave a witness statement to police not that long ago. It wasn't recorded.

Therefore, I find it decidedly off to slate the Italians for not recording witness statements when it is in fact the NORM, like they've committed some sort of terrible foul.

Also, this whole issue of whether AK went voluntarily to the police station on the night of the 5th, or whether she was summoned there, still bemuses me. See, I think that it's not the action of a culpable person (here, Amanda Knox) to place themselves voluntarily in a police station at any time during a police investigation into a crime which they know they have committed.

It was all about control. She didn't want them questioning Raffaele without her being there. She wanted (needed) to know what was done and said. If she'd have stayed at home (Raffaele's) she'd have been alone, out of the loop and therefore out of control, all the while wondering what may be happening, what may be being said.

 

[Fulcanelli]

It's a touch disingenuous to say that once a person is deemed a "suspect" in Italy, they can only be questioned by a "judge". Given that Fulcanelli knew he was giving a reply to someone who didn't know the finer points of the Italian justice system, I can only assume that the word "judge" was used here to give the impression of a judge in the UK/US meaning of the word. In other words, a disinterested and impartial figure who hears cases in a court of law.

Unlike you, I do not immediately assume everyone else is just going to assume I mean like in the Common Law system.

A suspect can only be questioned by a judge. In this case, that means a court judge or the investigating judge (the prosecutor...the prosecutor is a judge).

(I also think that the phrase "The police can never question that individual in regard to that offence ever again" might further convey the erroneous impression that a suspect can no longer be probed by law enforcement agents of any kind, but that's another matter.......)

Then whoever got that 'impression' would be misinterpreting what I actually said. I said the police could never interrogate them again. That is fact. I never said the police couldn't 'probe' or investigate them. Interrogate is interrogate and everyone knows what the word means, there's no ambiguity with it.

 

[Agatha]

I believe that a culpable person would try to stay as far away from the police as they possibly could, without looking deliberately evasive or uncooperative. And I've seen some people counter that argument by saying that actually she was summoned there by Sr Gobbi. Which is it? And if she did attend voluntarily, why would she do so if she knew she was involved in the crime? Was Amanda Knox - in some people's opinions - so cunning and arrogant that she thought it appropriate to engage in a high-risk double bluff like this?

Personally I think that she thought, and still thinks, she can talk her way out of anything, but that's just my personal opinion. Not to be relied on and not evidence.

If I were on her defence team I would do everything in my power to prevent her talking, the "What do you think, she ******** bled to death" type comments (cite) that she made are as damaging to her as are her email and her changing stories.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Personally I think that she thought, and still thinks, she can talk her way out of anything, but that's just my personal opinion. Not to be relied on and not evidence.

If I were on her defence team I would do everything in my power to prevent her talking, the "What do you think, she ******** bled to death" type comments (cite) that she made are as damaging to her as are her email and her changing stories.

I have always wondered why this comment has been viewed by some to be damaging to Amanda. She was under a lot of stress. She was angry that her friend was just murdered. Someone made a comment that Amanda thought had an obvious answer and the stress of the moment caused her to snap back.

We all do this when we are under stress or we feel that someone has asked a dumb question or made a dumb comment. Just read the responses on this board and you will see what I mean.

 

[Magister]

It was all about control. She didn't want them questioning Raffaele without her being there. She wanted (needed) to know what was done and said. If she'd have stayed at home (Raffaele's) she'd have been alone, out of the loop and therefore out of control, all the while wondering what may be happening, what may be being said.

AK and RS could not have always been questioned together prior to 5 Nov.

 

[Amazer]

I have always wondered why this comment has been viewed by some to be damaging to Amanda. She was under a lot of stress. She was angry that her friend was just murdered. Someone made a comment that Amanda thought had an obvious answer and the stress of the moment caused her to snap back.

We all do this when we are under stress or we feel that someone has asked a dumb question or makes a dumb comment. Just read the responses on this board and you will see what I mean.

It's damaging because it shows a lack of empathy.

 

[Fiona]

To clarify, I don't think recorded "witness" statements can be used in court as evidence against someone else (they can't be cross-examined), and how a defendant's own words can be used against him before he received a Miranda warning is also limited.

Fair enough. I believe LondonJohn was arguing that such recordings could be used so long as any self-incriminating parts were redacted. Perhaps I misunderstood

But what I am getting at is where the police say the defendant said "X," and the defendant says, "I never said that" or "That's not what I meant" or "I misunderstood your language" or "That's just the hypothesis you told me to talk about" or "The police beat me up and I was scared." Even if the defendant signs a statement, the document doesn't show what preceded the signature. It could have been "Just sign this, it's just a formality, then you can go." Or it could have been "Sign here or you'll die here." A recording protects the police when they are following the rules and strengthens the impact of a voluntary confession, and it protects the defendant if the cops go rogue. To say the cops aren't legally required to make a recording doesn't mean they shouldn't, and it doesn't eliminate reasonable questions about what really happened in the back room.

Whether you think they should or they shouldn't does not change the fact that they don't either here or in Italy. What percentage of forces do it in America? I gather from what Fulcanelli said that it is not a law and if it is not then it is presumably guidance for some forces. That seems to me to be worst of all possible worlds. Any force which does not do it in any given case will be open to the kind of implication which is being made here: and so it may well be that the spread of this practice is effectively forced. Maybe that is a good thing, and maybe it is not. But it is not the situation in Italy or in the UK and the police do not do it. That is all there is to it really

It also sounds as if your systems make a bigger, more formal distinction between "witness" and "suspect" than here. In the U.S., when the police investigate a major crime, they pretty much assume everybody is a "suspect" until they determine otherwise, particularly since the majority of murders are committed by people who know their victim. If you, as a witness, reported that your child hadn't come home from school, the police would want to know where you and everybody in your house were and what you were doing at the relevant time, and if you changed your story you would face increased scrutiny. In the Perugia case, everybody who had access to the apartment and everybody who had ever met the victim would have been (or at least should have been) a suspect. It's impossible to believe that the police didn't consider the victim's roommate who found the body a suspect from the first minute, even if they didn't apply the label.

Matter of language, I think. A witness has not been arrested and is not subject to detention. That is true here and in America and it is a legal distinction which makes a difference. The fact that the police might suspect someone is true. But in this country they cannot arrest someone unless they have evidence. I think that is also true in America. The translation from the Italian which we have is perhaps confusing: because the distinction being made is more similar to the distinction between an witness and someone who is under arrest. Although it is not directly analogous that is as near as I can express it. Not sure if that helps but I am not sure how you use language to separate those who are truly witnesses and those who are under arrest and formally cautioned and detained. Let us say the latter are "arrestees" if that makes it clearer. The transition from witness to suspect we have been discussing in the italian context is that kind of formal transition. Once one is made a suspect one has to be advised of one's rights; has the right to a lawyer; and cannot be asked any more questions by the police. The prosecuting magistrate then has to review the reasons the police have made that transition and decide whether to release the suspect of continue to hold him or her in custody. He can detain for 48 hours if he decides to do that: then the suspect must be brought before a judge who will hear the evidence obtained to that date and the application for continued detention if there is one. That judge will then decide whether to release; place under house arrest; or to detain further. The default assumption is release but there are rules about what kinds of things should count in favour of detention. This part is a bit like a bail hearing in this country - not sure if you have that in America.

Thereafter the defence can make application for any decision to detain to be lifted, and can do that at any time. That application is heard before a different judge. If it is refused there is the right to appeal to yet another judge: twice at least so far as I am aware; that is better than the situation in this country so far as the rights of the accused are concerned.

I do not think there is any reason whatsoever to criticise these arrangements when they are compared with the situation here, at least.

 

[Fiona]

AK and RS could not have always been questioned together prior to 5 Nov.

She said she went to the police station voluntarily. I do not know what we should expect from someone who was guilty. For example I do not think I would have expected someone to take a knife into a police station where they were to be interviewed about a murder which involved a knife. Sollecito senior did not think it a good idea, I gather. But his son disagreed

It is fruitless to suggest that a guilty person would be more likely to do X, because we just don't know. We really don't.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

It's damaging because it shows a lack of empathy.

Actually it does not. It shows anger that her friend felt pain when she was murdered.

 

[Fiona]

It's damaging because it shows a lack of empathy.

As it happens I do not think this statement is significant either. This is one of those situations where hearing it is shocking to some. Perhaps I too lack empathy but I could see myself saying it perhaps: if I was shocked and tired and angry and the person asking the question was annoying me. Again I do not at all see we can read much into it. Perhaps that is just me

 

[Agatha]

It says that to you (eta to Bruce); it does not say that to me. Neither of us are privy to the workings of her mind, so the most we can do is interpret it in the light of our own experience.

What none of us can do is to be definite about it.