Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Fulcanelli]

The comments from Fulcanelli along with his link, certainly show the media's effect on this case.

Yeah, because for sure...the Italians are avid readers of the Daily Mirror's gossip column (rolls eyes).

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Here is what is really sad about this case for Amanda:

First, the media was all against her right from the start, except the American media, but the trial was in Italy and almost no one there reads or hears the American media. Thus the Italian people were against her as a whole.

Secondly, all the police were against her, right from the very beginning. Now even taking her back to court for slandering them, 26 years isn’t enough for them I guess.

Next, all the scientific police and investigators were against her. Some say they even falsified results and tampered with evidence to obtain their vengeful ends.

The Jurors were as well, some sleeping thru parts of the trial, others wearing the Italian colors. They weren’t sequestered, so they had all week to read and surf the net about all the bad things people were saying and writing about Amanda.

And finally, all the Judges and prosecutors were against her, and she went before about 12 judges I believe, not one giving her a break. The prosecutors, asking for time on her sentence on appeal, obviously not happy with the 26 years she got.

Besides her immediate family, her two lawyers and RS, no one in Italy was on her side. At least all the friends she made the last two months in Italy stood up for her.
People actually cheered the verdict when it was given outside the courthouse. With all that going against her, no wonder the verdict was guilty.

Amanda never had a chance.

 

[Mary_H]

Here is what is really sad about this case for Amanda:

First, the media was all against her right from the start, except the American media, but the trial was in Italy and almost no one there reads or hears the American media. Thus the Italian people were against her as a whole.

Secondly, all the police were against her, right from the very beginning. Now even taking her back to court for slandering them, 26 years isn’t enough for them I guess.

Next, all the scientific police and investigators were against her. Some say they even falsified results and tampered with evidence to obtain their vengeful ends.

The Jurors were as well, some sleeping thru parts of the trial, others wearing the Italian colors. They weren’t sequestered, so they had all week to read and surf the net about all the bad things people were saying and writing about Amanda.

And finally, all the Judges and prosecutors were against her, and she went before about 12 judges I believe, not one giving her a break. The prosecutors, asking for time on her sentence on appeal, obviously not happy with the 26 years she got.

Besides her immediate family, her two lawyers and RS, no one in Italy was on her side. At least all the friends she made the last two months in Italy stood up for her.
People actually cheered the verdict when it was given outside the courthouse. With all that going against her, no wonder the verdict was guilty.

Amanda never had a chance.

It's going to make a great film.

 

[Mary_H]

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.

Every 7-11 and Safeway in the United States has CCTV security cameras; obviously, the police stations do, too. The police station in Perugia, in the heart of Mafia and drug-dealer territory doesn't have them? Doubtful. Even with only video and no audio, what was recorded during Amanda's interrogation would be extremely helpful in terms of determing whether or not she was hit or otherwise coerced during her interrogation.

There is no reason the police would not have recognized, "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." Was every interview with Amanda conducted by a large group of police officers in the middle of the night? Was any other interview with Amanda conducted after Raffaele allegedly dropped Amanda's alibi?

It has been pointed out many times that it is unlikely the police didn't record this interrogation when they had busily been recording phone calls all week. But let's go to extremes here and imagine that they neither videotaped nor audotaped the interrogation. Here is Amanda's description of one of the "garden variety" interviews they conducted with her earlier in the week:

"...at the station i just had to repeat the answers that i had givne
at the house do they could type them up and after a good 5 and a half
hour day with the police again raffael picked me up and took me out
for some well-deserved pizza...."

I agree with LashL -- the police deliberately decided either not to record the interrogation or not to release it.

 

[Mary_H]

A press conference is not "leaking documents". Which documents were leaked by the prosecution?

Amanda's "confession" and later statement were in all the papers within hours.

 

[Mary_H]

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.

Good post, Magister.

 

[Mary_H]

....This evidence included, behavioural, circumstantial, witness and forensic evidence against them as well as their own multiple lies they had told police and others.

What multiple lies, specifically?

 

[Mary_H]

Yes, call me a fool, but in the U.S. we would assume that a "judge" is an impartial participant in the process. Police arrest and charge a defendant, and the prosecutor (part of the executive branch of government) takes him before a judge or magistrate (part of the judicial branch) who decides whether there is sufficient evidence to hold him, sets bail, etc. A judge plays no role in the investigation of a crime before it comes before him as part of a public proceeding, and can throw out the charge and set the defendant free if he wants to. If a "judge" in Italy is part of the prosecution team, that is a very different role. An American college student would not be likely to understand that, or to understand her rights more broadly in a foreign system. There also appears to be a strong incentive to question someone as a "witness" as long as possible and even extract a signed statement from them before formally naming them a "suspect." Questions about the Italian system really are about whether the system is structured to reach the correct result, meaning convict the guilty and free the innocent (and yes, the U.S. system makes plenty of mistakes too).

As I understand it, Bob, in Italian trials, the presiding judge guides the jury panel's deliberations as well.

 

[capealadin]

You know who never had a chance, Sherlock? Meredith!. Amanda still has her life.

 

[stilicho]

It's going to make a great film.

All the proceeds will have to be paid to the family of the woman she murdered.

 

[stilicho]

As I understand it, Bob, in Italian trials, the presiding judge guides the jury panel's deliberations as well.

In Canada the judge also issues directions to the jury. I believe they do in the US too.

The one feature of the Italian system rarely admired is the requirement to publish their reasons for determining guilt or innocence. This does not happen in Canada and I doubt it happens in the US either.

 

[stilicho]

I agree with LashL -- the police deliberately decided either not to record the interrogation or not to release it.

The mountain of evidence used to convict the three vicious killers did not include unrecorded interviews. If you have any evidence that this is untrue then present it now. Otherwise you can drop the false apprehensions.

 

[Mary_H]

The mountain of evidence used to convict the three vicious killers did not include unrecorded interviews. If you have any evidence that this is untrue then present it now. Otherwise you can drop the false apprehensions.

All of the flimsy circumstantial evidence that constitutes this alleged "mountain" appears to have resulted from coercion and lying on the part of the police. Unfortunately (or conveniently?), without records of their actions, it is difficult to prove. Likewise with the two pieces of "forensic" evidence that exist -- they also appear to be the result of misbehavior on the part of the investigators.

A great deal of anecdotal evidence exists showing the Italians to be corrupt; no anecdotal evidence shows Amanda and Raffaele to be murderers. Under those circumstances, along with the prosecution's inability to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, it is much more rational to trust in Amanda and Raffaele's innocence.

 

[Fiona]

Every 7-11 and Safeway in the United States has CCTV security cameras; obviously, the police stations do, too. The police station in Perugia, in the heart of Mafia and drug-dealer territory doesn't have them? Doubtful. Even with only video and no audio, what was recorded during Amanda's interrogation would be extremely helpful in terms of determing whether or not she was hit or otherwise coerced during her interrogation.

So what? As I understand it there is far less CCTV surveillance in America than there is here. But the police do not make audio or video recordings of witness statements here. You can continue to assert it "must" have happened but your incredulity does nothing to evidence your position

There is no reason the police would not have recognized, "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."

Every case might become contentious. The police don't record witness statements in the UK nor do they in Italy. There is no reason at all why they should make special arrangements for this case. In fact I think they would be rightly criticised if they did not follow their standard procedure.

Was every interview with Amanda conducted by a large group of police officers in the middle of the night?

This interview was conducted at a time of RS's choosing. You can go on reiterating that fact that the interviews started at a late hour: I have not missed the unspoken echo. But that echo has no relevance here and that is presumably why you have not made it explicit. There is nothing sinister at all about the time of this interview

Was any other interview with Amanda conducted after Raffaele allegedly dropped Amanda's alibi?

Yes. The interview of her as suspect, held some days later. That is what you would expect, is it not? It is what is required by Italian law, anyway

It has been pointed out many times that it is unlikely the police didn't record this interrogation when they had busily been recording phone calls all week.

It has been asserted on the basis of personal incredulity, yes.

But let's go to extremes here and imagine that they neither videotaped nor audotaped the interrogation.

Nothing extreme about it

Here is Amanda's description of one of the "garden variety" interviews they conducted with her earlier in the week:

"...at the station i just had to repeat the answers that i had givne
at the house do they could type them up and after a good 5 and a half
hour day with the police again raffael picked me up and took me out
for some well-deserved pizza...."

Yes:they made a written record of what she said: that is also what you would expect and is clearly standard practice. We know that they did that. That record is not admissible.

I agree with LashL -- the police deliberately decided either not to record the interrogation or not to release it.

They did record her statement on paper, and Knox signed it. That is not in dispute. Since it is not admissible I do not see how they could have released it to the public: if they had you would have accused them of malpractice and you would have been right.

However the record was handed to all the parties to the trial, as it should have been

You don't have an issue so far as I can see

 

[Mary_H]

So what? As I understand it there is far less CCTV surveillance in America than there is here. But the police do not make audio or video recordings of witness statements here. You can continue to assert it "must" have happened but your incredulity does nothing to evidence your position

I was referring to the cameras that are generally present in fixed positions in every room and that are recording at all times; not ones that are specifically turned on to tape witness (or suspect) statements.

Every case might become contentious. The police don't record witness statements in the UK nor do they in Italy. There is no reason at all why they should make special arrangements for this case. In fact I think they would be rightly criticised if they did not follow their standard procedure.

So far, I haven't seen anybody praising them for not recording, so I seriously doubt anyone would criticize them for recording. And as someone mentioned previously, this was an extraordinary crime in Perugia; you would think they would want as many records of it as they could get.

This interview was conducted at a time of RS's choosing. You can go on reiterating that fact that the interviews started at a late hour: I have not missed the unspoken echo. But that echo has no relevance here and that is presumably why you have not made it explicit. There is nothing sinister at all about the time of this interview

I'm not sure I am catching your meaning about the unspoken echo and not making things explicit. I thought I had been pretty explicit about condemning the police for purposely performing their interrogations at night in general (see one of my very first posts, about what Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote about the Gulag Archipelago), and for not waiting until the next day in this particular case.

Yes. The interview of her as a suspect, held some days later. That is what you would expect, is it not? It is what is required by Italian law, anyway

Obviously, that was not my meaning. The midnight interrogation was the FIRST interview with her following Raffaele's alleged withdrawal of her alibi. Should have been pretty important in the police's minds, no?

It has been asserted on the basis of personal incredulity, yes.

That's for sure.

Nothing extreme about it

Maybe not in Upper Volta.

Yes:they made a written record of what she said: that is also what you would expect and is clearly standard practice. We know that they did that. That record is not admissible.

They did record her statement on paper, and Knox signed it. That is not in dispute. Since it is not admissible I do not see how they could have released it to the public: if they had you would have accused them of malpractice and you would have been right.

However the record was handed to all the parties to the trial, as it should have been

As I understand it, the "confession" statement was not written by Amanda -- it was written in Italian and she signed it, even though she was not totally committed to the words they had put in her mouth.

You don't have an issue so far as I can see

No, not as far as you can see.

 

[Fiona]

I was referring to the cameras that are generally present in fixed positions in every room and that are recording at all times; not ones that are specifically turned on to tape witness (or suspect) statements.

Which may or may not be there: they were certainly not there in the last police interview room I was in.

So far, I haven't seen anybody praising them for not recording, so I seriously doubt anyone would criticize them for recording. And as someone mentioned previously, this was an extraordinary crime in Perugia; you would think they would want as many records of it as they could get.

I would certainly criticise them if they did not follow standard procedure. Standard procedures are implemented to ensure equitable treatment. Once you start making exceptions there are obvious dangers. It was an extraordinary crime: that does not mean they should depart from normal practice and indeed if the police are given license to proceed as they think fit I do not see we have much in the way of safeguards at all. I also think it is not unreasonable to imagine that local people would be very critical if foreigners were treated differently by the criminal justice system: such perceptions very often lead to public outcry. I think that is understandable

I'm not sure I am catching your meaning about the unspoken echo and not making things explicit. I thought I had been pretty explicit about condemning the police for purposely performing their interrogations at night in general (see one of my very first posts, about what Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote about the Gulag Archipelago), and for not waiting until the next day in this particular case.

You are right and I am wrong. You have indeed made it explicit. For some reason I had forgotten your very early contribution. I withdraw unreservedly. And I take my hat off to you for admitting that very embarrassing point of view. It is very honest of you

Obviously, that was not my meaning. The midnight interrogation was the FIRST interview with her following Raffaele's alleged withdrawal of her alibi. Should have been pretty important in the police's minds, no?

At some point in the course of this interview the police became aware that RS was no longer providing an alibi: that is true and it is certainly important. So what do you think the police should have done? Should they not have informed her of this? Should they not have asked questions about it? In the context of a brutal murder enquiry I think that is something of a stretch.

That's for sure.

Not much that can be said in face of that.

Maybe not in Upper Volta.

Or the UK or Italy or parts of America. Do you have a point?

As I understand it, the "confession" statement was not written by Amanda -- it was written in Italian and she signed it, even though she was not toally committed to the words they had put in her mouth.

This is standard in the UK as well. The police record the interview on paper and it is either read to the witness, or they read it themselves: they are asked if they wish to make any amendments and then they are asked to sign it if it is a true record of what was said. They do not have to sign it and certainly should not if they do not agee with it. But perhaps they do this differently in America? How do they do it in those areas where no audio or video recording is made? Do you even know?

 

[Mary_H]

Which may or may not be there: they were certainly not there in the last police interview room I was in.

My point was that it would be reasonable to expect CCTV cameras to be in police stations in Italy.

I would certainly criticise them if they did not follow standard procedure. Standard procedures are implemented to ensure equitable treatment. Once you start making exceptions there are obvious dangers. It was an extraordinary crime: that does not mean they should depart from normal practice and indeed if the police are given license to proceed as they think fit I do not see we have much in the way of safeguards at all. I also think it is not unreasonable to imagine that local people would be very critical if foreigners were treated differently by the criminal justice system: such perceptions very often lead to public outcry. I think that is understandable

You are really stretching to disagree here. Are you forgetting that every time one of the innocentisti says the police should have arrested Patrick using standard procedures, one of the guilters hollers, "A violent rape and murder had been committed!!! A rapist and murderer was on the loose!!! The police had no choice!!!"

On the other hand, there would be no criticism of the police for behaving extraordinarily under extraordinary circumstances as long as witnesses' rights were protected.

You are right and I am wrong. You have indeed made it explicit. For some reason I had forgotten your very early contribution. I withdraw unreservedly. And I take my hat off to you for admitting that very embarrassing point of view. It is very honest of you

That's okay, you don't need to be embarrassed on account of my point of view.

At some point in the course of this interview the police became aware that RS was no longer providing an alibi: that is true and it is certainly important. So what do you think the police should have done? Should they not have informed her of this? Should they not have asked questions about it? In the context of a brutal murder enquiry I think that is something of a stretch.

I never suggested such a thing. I said the police would have known it was important enough to record.

Not much that can be said in face of that.
Or the UK or Italy or parts of America. Do you have a point?

I have made my points.

This is standard in the UK as well. The police record the interview on paper and it is either read to the witness, or they read it themselves: they are asked if they wish to make any amendments and then they are asked to sign it if it is a true record of what was said. They do not have to sign it and certainly should not if they do not agee with it. But perhaps they do this differently in America? How do they do it in those areas where no audio or video recording is made? Do you even know?

Amanda has testified the interrogation was coercive and the police would not allow her to disagree with them. Signing the document was the only way out.

By the way, the slander suit was filed on behalf of TWELVE police officers who were present during her interrogation.

 

[s_pepys]

phew! Finished reading last thread and this one. Would like to say hello to you all and congratulate you on a lively and interesting debate. coming from a totally neutral standpoint as to the guilt or innocence of ms Knox, i have learnt a great deal about the case from both threads. im a criminology student and work in forensic mental health and this has been a valuable insight into public opinion on a high profile, difficult case. Nothing is ever black and white i think. Keep up the good work. Thanks everyone

lxxx

 

[Mary_H]

phew! Finished reading last thread and this one. Would like to say hello to you all and congratulate you on a lively and interesting debate. coming from a totally neutral standpoint as to the guilt or innocence of ms Knox, i have learnt a great deal about the case from both threads. im a criminology student and work in forensic mental health and this has been a valuable insight into public opinion on a high profile, difficult case. Nothing is ever black and white i think. Keep up the good work. Thanks everyone

lxxx

Wow, that's a lot of reading, Sam. Very admirable!

 

[s_pepys]

hi mary.

one of the advantages of lots of 12 hour shifts in front of a computer with no patients about. Must have to much time on my hands! It has been very addictive reading too. Feel like i know you all really well now.

lxxx