Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Fiona]

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

Yes I know that was your point. You are wrong, is all.

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!!!"

They did arrest him in the way they would have arrested anyone who was accused of a brutal murder by an eye witness. That is direct evidence and I think any police force in the world would have done the same. The examples which have been given of "surveillance" do not compare: in those cases there was no eyewitness accusation, unless I am misrembering.

But even if you disagree with that and the police were less than measured when the made that arrest, the situation of the interview is hardly comparable. It was a witness interview: they have done thousands of them in just the same way. No reason to depart from standard procedure: no excuse for doing so: no anxiety about the consequences if they did stick to standard procedure: no defence at all if they were challenged for not doing so. I see no relevance in Patrick's arrest, much less any stretch to disagree.

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.

We are agreed. If there are extraordinary circumstances there is less likely to be criticism. There were none with respect to the interview, however

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

I am not embarrassed. Your chauvinism is not my problem

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

That is not what is done in Italy. It is not what is done in the UK. It is not what is done in parts of America. It is not a question of what is "important enough": all interviews in criminal investigations are important. All interviews in cases of brutal sexual assault and murder are very important. That is true everywhere and always. Those interviews are conducted according to the law and standard procedures in place in the jurisdiction. That is all there is to it. Why is that hard to understand?

I have made my points.

OK

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.

We have been through this and we disagree. 'Nuff said

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

Were they? See LondonJohn's argument about the basis for defamation suits on a group basis. Does the suit actually say that they were all in the interview room? If not then it does not follow from the fact that they filed that they were. I don't know what the complaint says

 

[Fiona]

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

I agree with MaryH (waits for the stunned silence to settle to a normal one):no matter how much time you have that is a heroic effort. Well done!

 

[s_pepys]

hi fiona

thanks, i think. although im starting to wonder if i should get a life! lol. was the first thread really that long? the days have flown by over these last few weeks. Cheers.

lxxx

 

[s_pepys]

glad i could get you both to agree on something. my own little part in this saga.

lxxx

 

[Fiona]

"Where there is discord, may [he or she] bring harmony"

 

[Mary_H]

Yes I know that was your point. You are wrong, is all.

If it is not reasnable to expect CCTV cameras to be present in the homeland of the Mafia and in an area where drug dealing is rampant, then are we to conclude Italy is a backwater, as many people have claimed all along?

They did arrest him in the way they would have arrested anyone who was accused of a brutal murder by an eye witness. That is direct evidence and I think any police force in the world would have done the same. The examples which have been given of "surveillance" do not compare: in those cases there was no eyewitness accusation, unless I am misrembering.

But even if you disagree with that and the police were less than measured when the made that arrest, the situation of the interview is hardly comparable. It was a witness interview: they have done thousands of them in just the same way. No reason to depart from standard procedure: no excuse for doing so: no anxiety about the consequences if they did stick to standard procedure: no defence at all if they were challenged for not doing so. I see no relevance in Patrick's arrest, much less any stretch to disagree.

At the end of the interrogation, Amanda had signed a document saying she was present at the scene when a murder was committed, and she was then made a suspect. At that point, they had as much (if not more) evidence against her as they had against Patrick. It was inconsistent, if not odd, that they continued to use so-called standard procedure with her and extraordinary measures with Patrick.

I am not embarrassed. Your chauvinism is not my problem

Once again, you've lost me. What does chauvinism have to do with it?

That is not what is done in Italy. It is not what is done in the UK. It is not what is done in parts of America. It is not a question of what is "important enough": all interviews in criminal investigations are important. All interviews in cases of brutal sexual assault and murder are very important. That is true everywhere and always. Those interviews are conducted according to the law and standard procedures in place in the jurisdiction. That is all there is to it. Why is that hard to understand?

It has already been shown that what is not usually done in Italy, the UK and parts of America WAS done when Patrick was arrested. All of my original arguments stand -- this was an important enough occasion for the police to have wanted records of it, unless they specifically DIDN't want records of it, as LashL stated. At the very least, CCTV without audio was probably present and could be used to show whether or not Amanda was hit during the interrogation.

Do you think police are allowed to interrogate witnesses or suspects without being watched? What if the witness is like Raffaele and carries a knife, but is unlike Raffaele and decides to use it?

Were they? See LondonJohn's argument about the basis for defamation suits on a group basis. Does the suit actually say that they were all in the interview room? If not then it does not follow from the fact that they filed that they were. I don't know what the complaint says

I don't know what the complaint says either. I believe your argument was that it was only slander if the names of the accused were known?

 

[s_pepys]

hey fiona

was wondering. Not much has been mentioned about the proceedings in rudys trial. I know it was "behind closed doors" so to speak, but is there an official report or any documentation (a la massei) pertaining to rudys version of events that night?

lxxx

 

[Mary_H]

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

I don't know how you were able to restrain yourself from jumping in and commenting all the time.

 

[s_pepys]

I don't know how you were able to restrain yourself from jumping in and commenting all the time.

F.E.A.R!!!

 

[Mary_H]

hey fiona

was wondering. Not much has been mentioned about the proceedings in rudys trial. I know it was "behind closed doors" so to speak, but is there an official report or any documentation (a la massei) pertaining to rudys version of events that night?

lxxx

Here is the Micheli sentencing report. If you put it in Google you can say "translate this page."

http://www.penale.it/page.asp?mode=1&IDPag=750

 

[Fulcanelli]

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.

Oh give us a break! To say 'all' the Italian media was against her simply isn't true. While the police, judges and prosecutors were against her (is that different in ANY trial) she had a defence team and experts working FOR her. The judges weren't sequestered, but hardly anybody is sequestered nowadays, not even in the US and UK. The judges are under oath not to read the media on the case. As for the sleeping part, you should listen to the trial lawyer (UK) we have on PMF...according to him it's quite common for jurors to nod off during trials. In any case, it doesn't matter since everything's recorded and the judges would have gone over it all again later. 'Some say' the investigators tampered with evidence, unless you have actual evidence to show it, is not an argument for the 'poor Amanda' meme.

And the final point...the judges wearing national colours??? Did you REALLY just say that?????? You do realise their tricolor sashes are a part of their court regalia and ALL judges in Italy wear them in ALL trials?

 

[Fulcanelli]

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?

But it WAS a run of the mill interview. It only suddenly became not so run of the mill when Raffaele dropped Amanda's alibi. Large group? Amanda said 3 - 4 and one of those was the interpreter. But actually, lots of interviews with Amanda 'were' done with a large group...one of your favourite photos:

PMF

 

[Fulcanelli]

What multiple lies, specifically?

The multiple lies about what they were doing on the night of the murder and about the morning/early afternoon after.

 

[Fulcanelli]

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

They are ALL judges.

 

[Fulcanelli]

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?

But Raffaele didn't drop her alibi before they started questioning Amanda. Word of that didn't come through to them until they'd already been questioning her for some time.

 

[Mary_H]

But it WAS a run of the mill interview. It only suddenly became not so run of the mill when Raffaele dropped Amanda's alibi. Large group? Amanda said 3 - 4 and one of those was the interpreter. But actually, lots of interviews with Amanda 'were' done with a large group...one of your favourite photos:

[qimg]http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image.php?mode=medium&album_id=21&image_id=1203[/qimg]

PMF

It wasn't a run of the mill interview if it started after Raffaele's was talked into dropping Amanda's alibi; it was an interview on the basis of suspicion.

Interviews done in the field or at one's home are completely different from interviews done in a police station, where one's sense of autonomy and personal power are compromised.

 

[Mary_H]

The multiple lies about what they were doing on the night of the murder and about the morning/early afternoon after.

That's not very specific.

 

[Mary_H]

They are ALL judges.

The presiding judge shouldn't become a member of the jury panel.

 

[Mary_H]

But Raffaele didn't drop her alibi before they started questioning Amanda. Word of that didn't come through to them until they'd already been questioning her for some time.

Oh really? I thought you guys were always saying they started interviewing Amanda that night because of what Raffaele had told them.

 

[Fulcanelli]

hey fiona

was wondering. Not much has been mentioned about the proceedings in rudys trial. I know it was "behind closed doors" so to speak, but is there an official report or any documentation (a la massei) pertaining to rudys version of events that night?

lxxx

Hello s_pepys. Yes, there were reports from both Rudy's trial and from his appeal. The one from his trial is online, Mary gave you the link, but we've not been able to obtain the one from his appeal as of yet.