Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Mary_H]

How are witness statements recorded in those parts of america where they are not electronically recorded, MaryH ?

I try not to concern myself too much with comparing the way things are done in the United States to the way things are done in other countries. I don't want to come across as chauvinistic.

It is also irrelevant to the discussion. I don't hold Italians to U.S. standards, I hold them to what I consider to be moral and ethical standards. I hold the behavior of all police and legal practitioners, including in the United States, to the same standards, regardless of culture.

 

[Fiona]

I wonder if the attitude of deep suspicion of the police is underpinned by the situation in american police forces? An american I speak to online sent me this link and I think it is interesting. It is very long. Some of what it says mirrors the concern I have about the direction public service is taking in this country too.

http://www.villagevoice.com/2010-05-04/news/the-nypd-tapes-inside-bed-stuy-s-81st-precinct/3

It would not be surprising that folk living under this kind of regime had little trust in the police.

 

[Mary_H]

I wonder if the attitude of deep suspicion of the police is underpinned by the situation in american police forces? An american I speak to online sent me this link and I think it is interesting. It is very long. Some of what it says mirrors the concern I have about the direction public service is taking in this country too.

http://www.villagevoice.com/2010-05-04/news/the-nypd-tapes-inside-bed-stuy-s-81st-precinct/3

It would not be surprising that folk living under this kind of regime had little trust in the police.

I haven't read the article yet, but already I wonder if one might argue, conversely, that folk not living under "this kind of regime" would place too much trust in the police.

I don't have deep suspicion of the police, and I haven't seen anybody else on this thread who has. I have called the Seattle police a number of times in my life, with no ill effects. I also don't have deep suspicion of the Italian police as a general rule. I and others are responding rationally to actual evidence of actual "problems" (as LashL put it) with a specific group of practitioners in a specific area of that country.

 

[Matthew Best]

Interesting story. I note that the policeman at the centre of it carried an audio recorder with him recording his daily activities to protect himself against complaints from civilians. This seems to be the exact suggestion that RWVBWL was making.

 

[LondonJohn]

I wonder if the attitude of deep suspicion of the police is underpinned by the situation in american police forces? An american I speak to online sent me this link and I think it is interesting. It is very long. Some of what it says mirrors the concern I have about the direction public service is taking in this country too.

http://www.villagevoice.com/2010-05-04/news/the-nypd-tapes-inside-bed-stuy-s-81st-precinct/3

It would not be surprising that folk living under this kind of regime had little trust in the police.

But this whole story came about because a concerned officer decided to become a whistleblower - and he carried around a small digital audio recorder to document malpractice in the NYPD.

So surely this can be seen as a clear example of how irrefutably-recorded evidence can help to identify and eliminate malpractice? IF you think that malpractice to these levels (if not to these specifics) doesn't go on in pretty much every police force in North America and Western Europe, then I'd say you're wrong. After all, it's only when malpractice is actually uncovered, whether by whistleblowers, journalists or lawyers, that any such malpractice can be shown to be in existence at all.

As an interesting UK-specific aside, since PACE (the Police and Criminal Evidence Act)* was introduced in 1984, no post-1984 criminal conviction in the UK has subsequently been overturned owing to fabrication of statements by the police. PACE (and its successor, SOCP), has served to not only keep police honest, but has also all but eliminated spurious claims of statement fabrication from convicted criminals.

*PACE set out detailed rules regarding the police's powers in relation to the treatment of suspects, suspects' obligations towards the police, and complaint mechanisms against the police. There was a specific clause (Clause 60 in Part V of the Act) concerned with the tape recording of interviews. The clause states that all interviews with suspected persons must be audio-recorded. Note that it doesn't say "arrested persons". If the police consider the person they are interviewing to be a suspect, they must tape record the interview, even before they actually arrest the suspect.

Eek midnight. Off to bed before I turn into a pumpkin.....

 

[Fiona]

Well I think that is a very complicated question actually. It is not really for this thread because it is OT, however.

I am not here arguing whether they should adopt this practice; whether it is good thing for the police; whether it is a good thing for the accused; or anything else of that sort. If we wish to have that discussion we should do it in another thread and I am perfectly willing to participate if folk want to do that

What I am arguing is that it is not what is done here nor in Italy nor in parts of America: and therefore the suggestion that the lack of such a recording is evidence of a "deliberate decision" and of underhand dealings or some variation of that theme is just plain wrong

That is all this is about. And to me it is obvious. I really cannot understand why this cannot be agreed

 

[Fiona]

Interesting story. I note that the policeman at the centre of it carried an audio recorder with him recording his daily activities to protect himself against complaints from civilians. This seems to be the exact suggestion that RWVBWL was making.

It is part of what RWVBWL and others were arguing. But that has no bearing on this case at all that I can see.

 

[Matthew Best]

What I am arguing is that it is not what is done here nor in Italy nor in parts of America: and therefore the suggestion that the lack of such a recording is evidence of a "deliberate decision" and of underhand dealings or some variation of that theme is just plain wrong

Not sure how you arrive at that conclusion. It may very well be a "deliberate decision" not to do that sort of thing "here nor in Italy nor in parts of America". You seem to be saying that because it is done it can't be deliberate - that doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[Matthew Best]

It is part of what RWVBWL and others were arguing. But that has no bearing on this case at all that I can see.

We all see what we want to see, I guess.

 

[Mr.D]

So surely this can be seen as a clear example of how irrefutably-recorded evidence can help to identify and eliminate malpractice? IF you think that malpractice to these levels (if not to these specifics) doesn't go on in pretty much every police force in North America and Western Europe, then I'd say you're wrong

I don't think there's anyone here arguing that recording witness interviews shouldn't be done. Generally speaking I think there's an overall consensus that it would be best practices for police to record all potentially important interviews.

Specifically in the Kercher case, both "sides" are in fact lamenting the fact that there is no recording of Knox's interview available as such a recording would likely settle some of the politely discussed issues brought up here.

What seems to be most contentious on this thread is what that non-availability means. Some have claimed that the absence of such a recording is an indication of premeditated malice, general corruption or overall incompetence.

Thus far however, such claims have been limited to appeals to incredulity. No evidence has been forthcoming that recording interviews is either legally required, regular policy or usual practice by the Perugia police or Italian Justice System.

In the absence of such evidence, the most reasonable conclusion is that no recording is available because no recording was made, and it would have been unusual for them to have done so.



We now return you to the usual "Knox has four letters in it so she's guilty / But it's pronounced like it has three letters, so she's been framed" bickering.

 

[Mary_H]

Well I think that is a very complicated question actually. It is not really for this thread because it is OT, however.

I am not here arguing whether they should adopt this practice; whether it is good thing for the police; whether it is a good thing for the accused; or anything else of that sort. If we wish to have that discussion we should do it in another thread and I am perfectly willing to participate if folk want to do that

What I am arguing is that it is not what is done here nor in Italy nor in parts of America: and therefore the suggestion that the lack of such a recording is evidence of a "deliberate decision" and of underhand dealings or some variation of that theme is just plain wrong

That is all this is about. And to me it is obvious. I really cannot understand why this cannot be agreed

I can't agree with it because we have evidence the police and the prosecution tapped phones and recorded private calls, and they typed up Amanda's answers in another interview they had with her. It is very clear they were consciously making decisions about when and when not to record, whether by wire or paper. My view is they recorded everything and withheld anything that showed them breaking the law or behaving questionably.

 

[Mary_H]

I don't think there's anyone here arguing that recording witness interviews shouldn't be done. Generally speaking I think there's an overall consensus that it would be best practices for police to record all potentially important interviews.

Specifically in the Kercher case, both "sides" are in fact lamenting the fact that there is no recording of Knox's interview available as such a recording would likely settle some of the politely discussed issues brought up here.

What seems to be most contentious on this thread is what that non-availability means. Some have claimed that the absence of such a recording is an indication of premeditated malice, general corruption or overall incompetence.

Thus far however, such claims have been limited to appeals to incredulity. No evidence has been forthcoming that recording interviews is either legally required, regular policy or usual practice by the Perugia police or Italian Justice System.

In the absence of such evidence, the most reasonable conclusion is that no recording is available because no recording was made, and it would have been unusual for them to have done so.

The sad irony is that Mignini is allowed to proceed with his slander trial against Amanda without producing any evidence to counter her claims of being hit.

Everyone expects Amanda to "prove" she wasn't at the scene of the crime, and without such proof Mignini wins the trial. But nobody seems to expect the Flying Squad to "prove" they didn't whack Amanda. Yet, Mignini will no doubt win this trial as well, simply on the basis of the authority of his position.

 

[Matthew Best]

Knox can't possibly prove that she was hit on the head by a police officer, so she couldn't hope to charge them with anything in regard to the matter. But I don't see how they can possibly prove that she wasn't hit on the head, so they shouldn't win a slander trial.

However, I suspect that a bunch of policemen will say one thing, she will say another and their word will prove to be more persuasive than hers.

 

[Mary_H]

Knox can't possibly prove that she was hit on the head by a police officer, so she couldn't hope to charge them with anything in regard to the matter. But I don't see how they can possibly prove that she wasn't hit on the head, so they shouldn't win a slander trial.

However, I suspect that a bunch of policemen will say one thing, she will say another and their word will prove to be more persuasive than hers.

Exactly. And the same is essentially true for the entire case.

 

[Mary_H]

I can't agree with it because we have evidence the police and the prosecution tapped phones and recorded private calls, and they typed up Amanda's answers in another interview they had with her. It is very clear they were consciously making decisions about when and when not to record, whether by wire or paper. My view is they recorded everything and withheld anything that showed them breaking the law or behaving questionably.

ETA: They also recorded jail cell conversations.

 

[capealadin]

Unless the police had ESP, how could they know what Amanda was going to say? And, they didn't know beforehand that she would be at the police station. At that ppoint, she was just a witness. I believe Amanda panicked when told Raffaele no longer backed up their story. And came up with Patrick. The thing is: Not only did she accuse him, she said: It was him, he's bad, I'm scared of him. Why would she say those things? He had employed her, she thought he was her friend. I,m assuming Amanda was ignorant as to the law, that once she said she was with him, she would become a suspect. I think she thought that while they went off to nab Patrick, she could go home, and confront Raffaele, and work on their stories. That didn't happen, obviously. And in Raffaele's diary, he reiterates that he doesn't trust Amanda, and that 90% of his story was a load of BS.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

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?

Thanks for the smile - were up to 3 now,

I was being sarcastic - every word - but isn't this exactly how the FOA view this case?

 

[Fiona]

I can't agree with it because we have evidence the police and the prosecution tapped phones and recorded private calls, and they typed up Amanda's answers in another interview they had with her. It is very clear they were consciously making decisions about when and when not to record, whether by wire or paper. My view is they recorded everything and withheld anything that showed them breaking the law or behaving questionably.

Please see Mr D's post.

They did type up the witness statement from the earlier interview and they did just the same with this one: that is what they do.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Bob uses the DNA argument for Guede in Filomena's room but disagrees with the argument pertaining to Amanda in Meredith's bedroom.

The difference being that Rudy did not have a violent struggle with anyone in Filomena's room.

Not quite true, but good spin from you Bruce.

What I said was:

there is simply no evidence he was ever in Filomena's room after Meredith was murdered

DNA evidence is included in that, of course. Guede left evidence of his presence in every room of the apartment he visited. He took the time to stage the burglary to point the finger away from him (why would he think that?) or whatever reason one could surmise - but then left his feces in the toilet and shoeprints all over Meredith's room and the hallway? That just doesn't make sense.

As I said: There is no evidence he was ever in Filomena's room - much less after Meredith was murdered.

 

[tsig]

Skeptical Bystander is actually Peggy. She will not tolerate any opposition on PMF. I have no problem with that. We certainly have discussion boards that are not open to all opinions. Michael and Peggy have every right to run their own site.

There is nothing anyone could tell me online that would convince me that Amanda and Raffaele are guilty. I would need to see new evidence introduced. Everything I have shows me that they have been wrongfully convicted.

Fighting to keep someone in prison day after day is a very strange position to take. They claim that they are fighting for Meredith but when you listen to them long enough, you find out that they have developed hatred for Amanda and her family. Anything they can find that looks negative for Amanda or any of her family members is like cocaine to them. They are addicted and cannot get enough.

I have read the appeals for both Amanda and Raffaele. They both make very strong arguments. This will be corrected eventually. It might take the supreme court to get it corrected but it will be corrected.

Then why are you posting here?