Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

It does have relevance, IMO, Bruce. They may get a tougher judge. I pointed out that is what has just happened. And, no one's talking about an argument. I just thought it was interesting the different takes on the police as far as you and Mary were concerned. And, what is patently pbvious, there was no major onspiracy in the polce department. Neither was a mistake made. Last time I checked, they were found guilty. So, very good police work.

Why are Bruce and Mary required to have the same views, opinions and though processes? Are they not individual thinkers?

Oh no, I forgot, they are supposed to be following the same centrally-issued directives, so one of them must have got "off-message"....

And as for: "Last time I checked, they were found guilty. So, very good police work."?? This is a risibly poor line of argument, in my opinion (unless you're being ironic, but something tells me that irony doesn't much feature in your repertoire...).

 

[LondonJohn]

But, Bruce, you've got the wrong end of the stick. She's not being prosecuted for defending herself. She's being prosecuted for lying when defending herself. And her parents are guilty of heresay.

Anyone who pleads "not guilty" in a criminal trial who is then found guilty could be prosecuted for perjury (and possibly also for slander/calumny, depending on how they had tried to defend themselves), if one follows your argument to its logical conclusion.

 

[LondonJohn]

Bruce, youv'e proven nothing. Gather your strength for the translation of the Motivation report. Perhaps then you'll see the light of day. Oh, and as for the world view? Last time I checked, no protests, Perugia still full of students. World still moving along. No hue and cry. More written about her hair, actually.

For the last time..........there is nothing magical or new to be revealed in the Massei report.

The report deals with how the judicial panel arrived at its verdict and sentence. Nothing more or less than that. No new evidence will be revealed in the report - it never could be, since jury panels are required by law to assess the case based purely on the evidence presented in court.

So all that the Massei report will show is which parts of the prosecution's case they found to be compelling evidence of guilt (and, conversely, which parts they rejected). Since everybody already knows that the judicial panel found both defendants guilty on all charges, we can already know that they were persuaded by the bulk of the prosecution's case. No surprises to be had there, then - since we already know the prosecution's case in detail.

And anything that the report says by way of "crime narrative" is only of marginal relevance. I'd argue that the judicial panel actually has no business in law making up its own narrative of events - it should either accept the prosecution's narrative in whole or in part, or it should reject it without substituting its own.

The assumed mythical status of this report ("Ahhh - wait until you read the translated Massei report: then you'll understand") is getting completely out of hand - for reasons that are not hard to fathom......

To make a trite comparison: remember after the OJ Simpson trial, when various members of the jury were interviewed? I remember one of them saying things like "We thought that when the glove didn't fit OJ, the prosecution lost the case right there." We already knew that the glove didn't fit OJ (and we already knew that the prosecution had botched up badly in showing how this was of limited value, owing to shrinkage of the glove and OJ's donning of latex undergloves for the demo). So all that the juror's explanation told us was that the jury preferred to believe the defence over the prosecution in this instance. But that doesn't automatically make it the correct interpretation.

Obviously, the Mattei report is more erudite and considered (hopefully) than some of the jurors in the OJ trial. But the principle is exactly the same. The report tell us how the judicial panel arrived at a conviction, but won't be introducing any new evidence. It merely shows us their interpretation of the evidence. And we already know that their interpretation indicated guilt beyond reasonable doubt, since they voted to convict. BUT this doesn't mean that no other interpretations are still possible. The "words of Mattei" are not stone tablets handed down by the Gods.

 

[Fiona]

So you do not think that the report will contain any evidence or information we do not have? I sincerely hope you are wrong. I was not at the trial: I did not see the expert reports nor the documents. I did not hear huge chunks of the evidence . While there will be nothing new for those who were party to the trial I am hoping that there will be some new evidence for us: if not then there is very little point in continuing this thread because everything we can say has been said more than once. At least I have not seen anything new lately

 

[Bruce Fischer]

If you haven't read it, how can you know what's wrong with it?

Are we really going to go in circles again Bob?

I have told you repeatedly that I have read sections of the report. I have also read Amanda's appeal and Raffaele's appeal.

I have also discussed the report with an Italian speaking lawyer.

The report contains many errors. These errors will be argued on appeal. We will all have to wait and see what the outcome is.

 

[LondonJohn]

First of all, Halides, they were witnesses on the 4th. Second, tapping phones doesn,t mean you're a suspect. It is usually done to glean information. How do we know? Maybe Rudi calling asking Amanda to give him an alibi? What does her screaming have anything to do with them *knowing* she was coming in? Amanda herself said she went along, because she was scared of being alone. She was also screaming when she was next to the knife drawer. Yep. Raffaele was being told a lot of rubbish. According to Raffaele, however, he said it was AMANDA telling him rubbish.

This is a most entertaining post. So, police routinely tap the phones of people whom they merely believe to be witnesses, do they? I honestly don't think you can see the internal conflict of logic here. If people are purely witnesses, then by definition they have nothing to do with the crime. They may be able to provide interesting information to the police, but that information would be at no personal cost to themselves as witnesses. Therefore, the police can reasonably assume that such people would willingly tell the police everything they know in face-to-face interviews.

However, if people have something to hide, or there are things that they might be unwilling to discuss in a police interview, then there might be something to be gained by tapping their phones. But then, by definition, the police must suspect that people might be saying things on the phone that they were not willing to say to the police directly. This would make them - to a greater or lesser degree - a suspect (and remember, even if they are only harbouring/protecting the real culprit, that's still a criminal offence in itself).

In the UK, there are very strict rules about phone tapping. Police must make an application to a Chief Constable (the most senior police officer in each regional police force), and they must demonstrate to him/her that the person whose phone they want to tap is suspected of involvement in a serious crime. This demonstrates that in the UK at least, tapping of telephones is regarded as an invasion of civil liberties which can only be justified in certain special circumstances. And those circumstances in no way include casual monitoring of witnesses.

Here's the point where people say "But this wasn't the UK, it was Italy". And I would reply, the underlying principle is the same. There's simply no mileage to be gained by tapping someone's phone (with all the hours of surveillance and transcription which that entails) unless one is specifically looking for the person being tapped to implicate themselves or someone close to them.

And Italy has lots and lots of previous form in the exciting area of phone tapping. Try these two articles for starters:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/07/wiretap_trends_ss8/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/22/uk_attorney_general_backs_phone-tapping/

The second link is only really relevant in the final two paragraphs. But those paragraphs certainly make interesting reading...

 

[Bruce Fischer]

So you do not think that the report will contain any evidence or information we do not have? I sincerely hope you are wrong. I was not at the trial: I did not see the expert reports nor the documents. I did not hear huge chunks of the evidence . While there will be nothing new for those who were party to the trial I am hoping that there will be some new evidence for us: if not then there is very little point in continuing this thread because everything we can say has been said more than once. At least I have not seen anything new lately

I honestly don't know what you expect to find from the translated Massei report. I think many of the loyal followers are going to be very disappointed.

I have read the sections pertaining to the main pieces of evidence and the report will be completely taken apart on appeal. Amanda and Raffaele should be fully exonerated in the first appeal. If that doesn't happen, I have confidence that this will be seen correctly in Rome.

It's really sad that it might take that long to correct this mess.

 

[Moss]

What about the possibility that the wiretaps were set up as a means to establish Amanda's and Raffaele's legal status as suspects?

Edit: Ok, that depends on whether or not such records would actually be admissible as evidence to change the status. And the necessity to present evidence for this legal status seems to invite problems both for potential suspects and the police.

 

[odeed]

Were Knox and Sollecito's phones tapped before they were suspects?

As for the UK policy on phone tapping, phone tap evidence is not used in UK courts, and I am not aware that the police have to reveal if they tap a suspects phone if it goes to court.

 

[LondonJohn]

Were Knox and Sollecito's phones tapped before they were suspects?

As for the UK policy on phone tapping, phone tap evidence is not used in UK courts, and I am not aware that the police have to reveal if they tap a suspects phone if it goes to court.

Yes their phones were apparently tapped before they were officially deemed "suspects".

And you're absolutely correct to say that phone tap evidence cannot be presented in court. However, its use to the police is a) to confirm the tapped person's status as a suspect, b) to point them in the direction of suspects as yet unknown (i.e. people who the tapped person might speak with, or people referred to in tapped conversations), and c) probably most importantly, to point the police towards further admissible evidence of guilt*. The police then must find this and other evidence to take to court.

The fact that phone tap evidence can't be directly used in court once again shows how seriously UK legislators take phone tapping as an invasion of personal civil liberties. And I'd reiterate: there's no way that the UK police would ever be able to obtain permission to tap the phone of someone who was not already demonstrably suspected of serious crimes.

* An example of how phone tapping might help the police - without it in itself being admissible in evidence - is this: Suppose the police suspect Mr A of having been involved in a bank robbery (let's say they suspect him because they found his fingerprints on a demand note that was passed to the bank teller). They could then obtain a warrant to tap his phone. Via this tap, they might hear Mr A telephone Mr B, and discuss the location of the stolen money (let's call it Location X). The police might then stake out Location X, and observe Mr A, Mr B and Mr C going there to collect the stolen money. The phone tap would have provided the police with the means to know about Location X, and Mr B's identity. But the evidence that would help convict Mrrs A, B and C would not be the phone tap (which would be inadmissible), but rather the evidence of their joint visit to Location X - together with all other evidence the police could gather.

 

[Supernaut]

The media is very shameful. .....

You mean 'shameless', I believe.

And yes, they are shamless - it a pre-requisite for becoming a media-whore.

 

[LondonJohn]

You mean 'shameless', I believe.

And yes, they are shamless - it a pre-requisite for becoming a media-whore.

Indeed - just ask the families of any murder victim. Most of them will have had media camped on their front lawns, pushing monetary offers through the letterbox and trying lure them to the door for photos.

(Although, in the "Web 2.0" era, hacks have realised that it's far more cost-effective and efficient to simply rape the victims' Facebook pages for photos and info, complete with tributes from friends. Of course, all this social network information is in the public domain, so ethics and scruples can be totally thrown out of the window, can't they........)

 

[odeed]

Yes their phones were apparently tapped before they were officially deemed "suspects".

Do you have a source for this apparent allegation?

And you're absolutely correct to say that phone tap evidence cannot be presented in court. However, its use to the police is a) to confirm the tapped person's status as a suspect, b) to point them in the direction of suspects as yet unknown (i.e. people who the tapped person might speak with, or people referred to in tapped conversations), and c) probably most importantly, to point the police towards further admissible evidence of guilt*. The police then must find this and other evidence to take to court.

The fact that phone tap evidence can't be directly used in court once again shows how seriously UK legislators take phone tapping as an invasion of personal civil liberties. And I'd reiterate: there's no way that the UK police would ever be able to obtain permission to tap the phone of someone who was not already demonstrably suspected of serious crimes.

...

If the police in the UK do not have to reveal that a phone has been tapped, then how do you know that proper procedures were used to warrant the tapping in the first place, it seems a strange way to protect civil liberties, and it's one of the things the defenders of Knox crow on about with regards to Mignini's conviction for abuse of power.

 

[RoseMontague]

You mean 'shameless', I believe.

And yes, they are shamless - it a pre-requisite for becoming a media-whore.

In fairness to Bruce, he was borrowing from my quote when responding to me. The behavior is full of shame and those doing it have none it seems.

As far as the translated report (Number 9, Number 9), the portion presented here regarding the break-in was very informative, in my opinion. I have the Google translated versions posted on my docstoc page, and while there are many things that you are seeing through a glass darkly at, you can see to what great detail they go into regarding the reasoning behind their decision as well as many pages regarding the DNA and forensic evidence.

The main thing that I have gotten from this poor translation is that the defense experts were not convincing at all and the judge/jury was persuaded to a guilty verdict by the forensic evidence as much as the circumstantial evidence.

I will be glad when the PMF translation is done and I appreciate the hard work they are putting into that effort. Still, sometimes waiting is for the birds.

 

[Amazer]

I honestly don't know what you expect to find from the translated Massei report. I think many of the loyal followers are going to be very disappointed.

I don't expect too much in the way of new evidence that we are unaware of, but I'd like to know the judges reasoning.

I have read the sections pertaining to the main pieces of evidence and the report will be completely taken apart on appeal. Amanda and Raffaele should be fully exonerated in the first appeal. If that doesn't happen, I have confidence that this will be seen correctly in Rome.

Weren't the main pieces of evidence taken apart in the first trial? Or is there new data available that discredits the results of the tests that were done? Or is it a case of 'same old wine, new bottle'?

 

[tsig]

I was surprised that Fulcanelli bought it. It was obvious that you were being sarcastic.

I know you were trying to exaggerate everything but the truth is, you don't need a major conspiracy for a police department to make a mistake like this one. The higher ups tell you that the person is guilty. You think you are doing the right thing. She wont tell you what you need so you hit her a couple of times. She deserves it. She's guilty. The higher ups said she was guilty. The higher ups told you they had evidence that she committed a brutal murder. You are disgusted by her and feel that you are doing your job to guarantee that she confesses. You are taking an evil girl off the streets.

You never saw the actual evidence against her. You trust the higher ups and you want to please them.

Do you have a name for these "higher ups" and any reason why they hate Amanda so?

 

[tsig]

You completely miss the point. If it turns out that Amanda and Raffaele have been wrongly convicted, then the police work would be bad.

I have finished reading through Amanda's appeal. This will be corrected eventually. Like I said, it might take the supreme court but the truth will eventually prevail.

It has already prevailed.

 

[RWVBWL]

It has already prevailed.

Hi tsig,
Yes, you are correct!
Round 1 went to the government.
Round 2 will be an interesting battle,
and I for one eagerly await it's start...
Let's bring it on!

The sooner the better,
for if Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox are innocent,
as many of the folks who follow this case believe,
let's get them home ASAP!
RWVBWL

 

[Fulcanelli]

Come on Fulcanelli!
What's better?
A police officer's written memory
or a recording to re-hear or re-watch afterwards to go along with that officer's memory?

As I just mentioned a moment ago, Rodney King in Southern California sure was LUCKY that someone recorded his beating by police, even though, from what I recall, he was running away from them at the time.
Most people, including myself, would have thought that he was lying about police brutality without seeing that video tape, since most of us, the public, tend to believe that ALL police officers are on the right side.
But it seems the "us verses them" mentality does spoil a few cops sometimes.

Hence, audio+video, would definately help, don'tcha think, Fulcanelli?
Hmmm?
RWVBWL

It is not about what 'you' or anyone else thinks 'would be better', it is about what is and what is not required under Italian law, police standard operating procedure...the norm. Recording witness testimony in Italy is neither a legal requirement or the norm. To have recorded them was not legally required and would have been 'abnormal'.

What 'you' think is 'better', is irrelevant. All that is important is that the police were in full compliance of the law and their SOP.

Hi tsig,
Yes, you are correct!
Round 1 went to the government.
Round 2 will be an interesting battle,
and I for one eagerly await it's start...
Let's bring it on!

The sooner the better,
for if Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox are innocent,
as many of the folks who follow this case believe,
let's get them home ASAP!
RWVBWL

False. The judiciary is not the government, they are completely independent. Secondly, while it may true to say that Amanda, Rudy and Raffaele lost, it would be false to claim anyone 'won'.

As for 'bringing it on', we've been waiting for the defence and their supporters to bring it on, to offer a convincing case for innocence, for 2 and half years. What's been the hold-up?

 

[Fulcanelli]

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.

These are two completely different things. What on earth does tapping phones and bugging prison visits have to do with whether they do/should record witness statements? I don't see how you can make an argument for your apples by offering arguments about oranges.

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.

1. He is not allowed to proceed with 'his slander' trial. That has still to be decided in court by a judge.

2. It was the police who filed it, not Mignini. When a criminal offence is reported under law, the prosecutor 'has' to act...he cannot refuse.

3. And evidence has been provided....the sworn testimony of multiple police officers and the interpretor. This is combined with the fact that Amanda herself admitted on the stand that some of her claims regarding the actions of the police officers were false. Moreover, Amanda could not identify the officer that supposedly struck her, even though she would have been familiar with her through the investigation of the case and she was in a room with her for at least an hour and 45 minutes. Finally, Amanda made these accusations in open court. All of this is evidence that Amanda was/is lying.

4. 'If' it goes to trial, it is not for 'slander', it is for calunnia.

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.

It is beyond her simply having to prove she wasn't at the scene of the crime. It is also a case of her having to disprove all of the evidence that shows she was. This she (and her lawyers and experts) has failed to do.