Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Charlie Wilkes]

I would certainly criticise them if they did not follow standard procedure. Standard procedures are implemented to ensure equitable treatment.

The real problem is that "standard procedure" can and often does send investigators down the wrong path when it is applied to someone who is innocent.

Since most criminal suspects are in fact guilty, it has only been in recent years, because of DNA exonerations, that criminalists and courts have begun to examine what happens when "standard" interrogation procedures are applied to suspects who are innocent. Such people often incriminate themselves, and some confess outright. I have provided a couple of cites already in this thread, and I will gladly provide more if you are interested. Most will be US cases. This is a widespread problem.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Hahahaha no, they're not between two opposing camps, are they? And why is that? Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that is PMF only a forum for people who share your view?

I'm saying, that it is not a forum where debate between the two opposing sides takes place.

 

[LondonJohn]

I'm saying, that it is not a forum where debate between the two opposing sides takes place.

I don't think I'll say any more at this point..........

 

[Fulcanelli]

Oh I agree, and I can see where you're coming from. What I find strange is why Stilicho is even discussing your JREF interactions with halides on PMF, let alone why he appears to be advising you what your next moves in your JREF argument should be.

In fact, why are people discussing JREF-based arguments on PMF at all? If people want to contribute to arguments that are being made on JREF, why don't they just come on JREF and make their contributions here? Or is it that some people might feel that PMF offers them a "safe haven" from which to criticise arguments or slag off individual posters? Cos that what it looks like to me........

PMF debates the posts and topics on the case raised on sites across the board, not only the JREF (in the past for example, there was a lot of discussion regarding some of the posts on Frank's and Candace Dempsey's blogs). And in addition, proceedings on the JREF is only discussed on PMF occasionally. To read you, one would think the JREF is the centre of the debate there...far from it.

 

[quadraginta]

Oh I agree, and I can see where you're coming from. What I find strange is why Stilicho is even discussing your JREF interactions with halides on PMF, let alone why he appears to be advising you what your next moves in your JREF argument should be.

In fact, why are people discussing JREF-based arguments on PMF at all? If people want to contribute to arguments that are being made on JREF, why don't they just come on JREF and make their contributions here? Or is it that some people might feel that PMF offers them a "safe haven" from which to criticise arguments or slag off individual posters? Cos that what it looks like to me........

You seem to be suggesting that all JREF posters should be 'sequestered' from discussing the subject outside of the limits of this thread.

If you find the idea of an off-site public discussion about this thread to be so disturbing as to warrant a post remarking on it you must get really worked up about the idea of intra-board PMs or even (Gasp! ) personal emails being bandied back and forth.

Chill out, dude. It's only a message board.

 

[Fiona]

Have you asked Michael and Skeptical Bystander to step down as mods on PMF then...?

If you cannot see any difference between different sites, in terms of how they are run and what their aims are, that is a shame. I have founded on the ethos here as I understand it. PMF is wholly irrelevant

 

[RWVBWL]

Hi Mary H,

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.
So far, I haven't seen anybody praising them for not recording, so I seriously doubt anyone would criticize them for recording.[/B]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 agree, Mary H that this must have been an extraordinary crime in Perugia.

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..

Hi Fiona,
When I read this, I thought to myself, this was indeed probably an extraordinary crime.
But yet the police did not record the interviews of Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito. Since much has been leaked in this murder case, I would have luved to see the police interview where Raffaele turned against Amanda's alibi, and I would have luved to see Amanda's interview when she was informed of this, and then "helped" to remember.
Wouldn't you?

Using your quote above, I then found it "strange" that Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni went above and beyond the "Standard procedures are implemented to ensure equitable treatment" that you had mentioned when she tested the so-called murder weapon.
For didn't her original analysis show that there wasn't blood or DNA on the knife?
And she then had to test it again and again, because she knew it WAS there?

I'll end my post with your own quote once again:

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..

Personally I find it kind of strange when I do not see many of the PMF'ers criticizing Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni's work habits since she did not follow "standard procedure" in this extraordinary crime of the murder of Miss Kercher.

And then many of these same poster's will argue that it was "standard procedure" to NOT use audio or video to record the first interviews of Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox when these 2 naive young adults where coerced into turning against each other's alibi's...
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

PS-Correct me if I am wrong, but Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni test the bra clasp also?
And didn't she walk out of court when she was being questioned about her "work"?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

The real problem is that "standard procedure" can and often does send investigators down the wrong path when it is applied to someone who is innocent.

Since most criminal suspects are in fact guilty, it has only been in recent years, because of DNA exonerations, that criminalists and courts have begun to examine what happens when "standard" interrogation procedures are applied to suspects who are innocent. Such people often incriminate themselves, and some confess outright. I have provided a couple of cites already in this thread, and I will gladly provide more if you are interested. Most will be US cases. This is a widespread problem.

Charlie, could you provide a citation for how often this happens? So far, what we've heard on this matter has either been in regards to mentally impaired suspects and/or anecdotal evidence. Simply because you can provide court cases where a confession was coerced does not mean that it happens 'often'. In fact, it is likely that for every coerced confession that you provide evidence of, I could provide evidence of at least one, if not multiple, confessions that were not coerced.

Also, while you're at it, do you have a cite/study regarding how often it is that these confessions are aimed at another individual. The only part of Amanda's "confession" that was actually a confession was that she was in the cottage while Patrick was murdering/raping Meredith. I imagine that once she'd blurted out her accusation against Patrick, she was scrambling to explain how she knew - thus she placed herself in the cottage, but not actively involved in the rape/murder. I.e. she dug herself a hole she couldn't get out of. But this is not the "full" confession that is "often" coerced during Police interrogations (or is it?). You're making this claim (as you've made it before), please evidence it.


These are questions that have popped up every time the "coerced confessions occur often during Police investigations" and they have yet to be answered with evidence. While I acknowledge that a coerced confession can happen, that it is referred to as happening "often" is, at this point, nothing more than spin. And we have yet to see any kind of supporting information regarding how often coerced accusations come from innocent suspects.

 

[Fiona]

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..

Hi Fiona,
When I read this, I thought to myself, this was indeed probably an extraordinary crime.
But yet the police did not record the interviews of Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito. Since much has been leaked in this murder case, I would have luved to see the police interview where Raffaele turned against Amanda's alibi, and I would have luved to see Amanda's interview when she was informed of this, and then "helped" to remember.
Wouldn't you?

They did not record it in Italy. They would not have recorded it in this country. They would not have recorded it in at least some places in the USA. What I would like to satisfy my curiousity is neither here nor there

Using your quote above, I then found it "strange" that Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni went above and beyond the "Standard procedures are implemented to ensure equitable treatment" that you had mentioned when she tested the so-called murder weapon.
For didn't her original analysis show that there wasn't blood or DNA on the knife?
And she then had to test it again and again, because she knew it WAS there?

I'll end my post with your own quote once again:

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..

Personally I find it kind of strange when I do not see many of the PMF'ers criticizing Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni's work habits since she did not follow "standard procedure" in this extraordinary crime of the murder of Miss Kercher.

She certainly did not use standard procedure. There is no doubt about that. There is no standard procedure, though there is some guidance from the manufacturers of the machines and this has been discussed before.

As it happens I am influenced by the fact that Elizabeth Johnson did not use standard procedure for some her work for the courts in America either. What is done in cutting edge science is apparently different. Since I do not think the forensic evidence is all that important to this case I am not phased if that evidence is left out of the discussion, or of the appeal. I have no doubt that it is accurate but it is certainly true that it will have to be validated in the future either way.

But police interviewing is not new and it is not ground breaking. I do not see a valid comparison here really though I accept you have a point

And then many of these same poster's will argue that it was "standard procedure" to NOT use audio or video to record the first interviews of Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox when these 2 naive young adults where coerced into turning against each other's alibi's...
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

I am not arguing about this: I am telling you it is not done in this country, to my certain knowledge. It is not done in Italy nor in parts of America either: though I have no direct experience of that.

 

[RWVBWL]

Hi Fiona,
Thanks for the nicely written response.
I understand your points, and your posts are always a good read with thoughtfull points to ponder.

That said, I still would have luved to have seen a leaked interview of Raffaele Sollecito or Amanda Knox from Nov. 5 or 6 when these 2 young, naive adults were probably coerced into turning against each other's alibi's...
Have a nice Sunday
RWVBWL

 

[LondonJohn]

If you cannot see any difference between different sites, in terms of how they are run and what their aims are, that is a shame. I have founded on the ethos here as I understand it. PMF is wholly irrelevant

Oh right. I didn't realise that wholly different rules of fairness, decency, civility and openness were in operation over at PMF. My mistake.

 

[Fiona]

Oh right. I didn't realise that wholly different rules of fairness, decency, civility and openness were in operation over at PMF. My mistake.

No worries LondonJohn. We all make mistakes

 

[Moss]

I love hasty generalizations and false dilemmas. Can we please have some more?

 

[Danceme]

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.

I think this is also something to be admired. In Canada decisions are also sometimes written but usually only in serious or unusual Judge only trials, not in Jury trials. I've read quite a few Judge's Decisions and always find them enlightening. They are sent by the Judge's secretary to the Law Society members and various media types such as the CBC who request to be on the list.
For Jury trials you can sometimes obtain in written form the Judge's instructions to the Jury as well as all previous hearings on admissibility of evidence etc.

fiona

probably a wise move. well done. I think the idea that anyone on this thread (no offence) has information that could harm the upcoming appeals is quite ridiculous.

lxxx

Absolutely!

Hi s_pepys. How's the next volume of your diary coming along?

(snip)

** Yes, I am suggesting that AK's/RS's defence teams didn't properly or professionally challenge some of the evidence in the original trial. I'm also suggesting that certain improper rulings were made - chiefly the decision to allow the criminal slander trial to run concurrently. I also believe that AK's/RS's defence teams weren't probably willing to present (in the original trial) any challenges which might have implied malpractice or corruption at any level within Italian law enforcement agencies. I think that might change in the appeal.

I also think this was the biggest detriment to their trial. Did their lawyers not have any grounds to resist this?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I love hasty generalizations and false dilemmas. Can we please have some more?

I was going to link you to:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124603


But, then I realized that's really circular reasoning/begging the question/appeal to authority/appeal to popularity... I'm willing to bet the CT subforum has plenty of hasty generalizations and false dilemmas though

 

[RWVBWL]

I love hasty generalizations and false dilemmas. Can we please have some more?

Hi Moss,
Greetings from chilly, gloomy Southern California!
How's it in Germany right now?

I was reading your post, and I also saw your
"Tradition - always a good excuse for stupidity on purpose.", statement,
and it got me thinking about what I had posted a short while ago.

It's our modern world, with many new ways to communicate, study and examine evidence, it seems odd that the police would rely on antiquated interview and questioning tactics. Specifically, I find it odd that the police in Perugia in this particular extraordinary murder case decided not to record by either audio or video the interviews of 2 young people, Mr. Sollecito and Miss Knox, that they must have felt suspicious about.
But I believe, from what I have read, they were already intercepting and/or recording their phone calls.

Camcorders are cheap, even cell phones have recording capabilities, as I remember from seeing Saddam Hussein getting hanged a few years ago. Gosh, even I have a small voice recorder to conduct my own interviews with as I work on a research project involving a long ago fatal shark attack...

My point being that in this modern world, why the heck WOULDN'T any police department record all the statements, questions, and interviews that were conducted in a high profile murder case.

Post #1232 in this continuation of the JREF Amanda Knox story shows Miss Knox surrounded by 8 investigators, I believe.

And I bet that those 8 would have different recollections of what Miss Knox actually said.
I know that I do have different recollections when I record something and then go back to refresh my memory after re-listening to the EXACT words that my subject did say.
I get the jist of the conversation the first time, but by having the spoken words actually recorded, I can truly hear what was spoken, and often times 1 word is actually incorrect, which can change the meaning and interpretation of the persons intent.

As I conduct my own research project, I interview folks who speak English as the main language, so I could only imagine the difficulty of trying to question and interview someone, without recording it, who is speaking a foreign language and has only a small grasp of my own language.

An experienced, excellant detective should, in my opinion, carry a voice recorder at all times, such as the 1 that I have and use, a Sony Microcassette-Corder 670V.

And if not, WHY, in this day and age?
Why rely on someone's memory of what was said, when you can easily record it?

Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni appears to be doing "cuttting edge" work in her laboratory with regards to capturing criminals,
but yet the Perugian Police seem to rely on human memory, an antiquated technique
when simple, cheap audio, and video recorders are available...

Maybe the police DO NOT want to record the initial questions, for some reason?
Maybe it's "Tradition - always a good excuse for stupidity on purpose.", as you wrote
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

 

[Bob001]

Charlie, could you provide a citation for how often this happens? So far, what we've heard on this matter has either been in regards to mentally impaired suspects and/or anecdotal evidence. Simply because you can provide court cases where a confession was coerced does not mean that it happens 'often'. In fact, it is likely that for every coerced confession that you provide evidence of, I could provide evidence of at least one, if not multiple, confessions that were not coerced.

The Innocence Project is a U.S. legal organization that has worked to free more than 200 people who were falsely convicted of terrible crimes, some of whom were sentenced to death. Here's what they say about false confessions:

http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/False-Confessions.php

Links to other pages on their site, particularly the ones about DNA, are also enlightening.

As to the business about Knox falsely accusing Lumumba, why would she falsely name a co-conspirator who she knew wasn't there (and who might be able to prove it) rather than name someone she would have known was there? We know Guede was at the scene. If she had been there, why wouldn't she have named him instead? Or is it more likely that the police said something like, "We found hairs from a black man at the scene. What black men do you know? Pretend you did this, who could have been with you?" Knox's confession reeks of police intimidation. A real criminal would have tried to pin the blame on a real co-conspirator.[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]





[/FONT]

 

[Fiona]

Hi Moss,
Greetings from chilly, gloomy Southern California!
How's it in Germany right now?

I was reading your post, and I also saw your
"Tradition - always a good excuse for stupidity on purpose.", statement,
and it got me thinking about what I had posted a short while ago.

It's our modern world, with many new ways to communicate, study and examine evidence, it seems odd that the police would rely on antiquated interview and questioning tactics. Specifiacally, I find it odd that the police in Perugia in this particular extraordinary murder case decided not to record by either audio or video the interviews of 2 young people, Mr. Sollecito and Miss Knox, that they must have felt suspicious about.
But I believe, from what I have read, they were already intercepting and/or recording their phone calls.

Camcorders are cheap, even cell phones have recording capabilities, as I remember from seeing Saddam Hussein getting hanged a few years ago. Gosh, even I have a small voice recorder to conduct my own interviews with as I work on a research project involving a long ago fatal shark attack...

My point being that in this modern world, why the heck WOULDN'T any police department record all the statements, questions, and interviews that were conducted in a high profile murder case.

Post #1232 in this continuation of the JREF Amanda Knox story shows Miss Knox surrounded by 8 investigators, I believe.

And I bet that those 8 would have different recollections of what Miss Knox actually said.
I know that I do have different recollections when I record something and then go back to refresh my memory after re-listening to the EXACT words that my subject did say.
I get the jist of the conversation the first time, but by having the spoken words actually recorded, I can truly hear what was spoken, and often times 1 word is actually incorrect, which can change the meaning and interpratation of the persons intent.
And I am dealing with folks who speak English as the main language, so I would imagine the difficulty of trying to question and interview someone who is speaking a foreign language and has only a small grasp of my own language.

An experienced, excellant detective should, in my opinion, carry a voice recorder at all times, such as the 1 that I have and use, a Sony Microcassette-Corder 670V.

And if not, WHY, in this day and age?
Why rely on someone's memory of what was said, when you can easily record it?

Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni appears to be doing "cuttting edge" work in her laboratory with regards to capturing criminals,
but yet the Perugian Police seem to rely on human memory, an antiquated technique
when simple, cheap audio, and video recorders are available...

Maybe the police DO NOT want to record the initial questions, for some reason?
Maybe it's "Tradition - always a good excuse for stupidity on purpose.", as you wrote
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

Cos they don't. They probably will at some stage in the future just as they will here: but they don't now

They are not relying on their memory: they are relying on a record signed by the witness.

Again, you may not like it but there is nothing sinister or underhand about it.

 

[JREF2010]

Unfortunately (or conveniently?), without records of their actions, it is difficult to prove.

The recording was not done because of incompetence or intentionally not recorded.

Due to the quantity of professionals present for that interrogation/questioning, including even a Rome based Edgardo Giobbi, it would appear the group, as a whole, could not be incompetent.

This leaves the decision to not record as intentional.

Then it appears there is a need to know why this decision, to not record, was intentionally made.

 

[RWVBWL]

Cos they don't. They probably will at some stage in the future just as they will here: but they don't now

They are not relying on their memory: they are relying on a record signed by the witness.

Again, you may not like it but there is nothing sinister or underhand about it.

Hi Fiona,
Nice to hear from you again!

I had written my post above directly to Moss, and I hope that he will respond,
for I am curious about his "Tradition - always a good excuse for stupidity on purpose."
statement in relation to my own posting regarding the lack of using modern audio+video with instant recording capibilities for interviewing witnesses, potential suspects, and official supects in this high profile murder case...
RWVBWL