Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[quadraginta]

Thank you.

What is your opinion of the evidence that was used to hold Amanda responsible for the crime of murder? Do you think it was sufficient to establish guilt?

This is a trick question, of course. I don't know if you mean for it to be or not, but it is.

I came to the conclusion many years ago that the only certain way it is possible to second guess the conclusions of a jury is to have been a member of that jury. It is possible to develop different conclusions over time, but it is generally much less simple or obvious than partisans present it to be.

Yes, I know that juries can make mistakes, and I hope I will be spared a deluge of anecdotes to that effect, because that has nothing to do with my point.

I have not come to the conclusion that this verdict was in error. Even if I had, that would not address the question of Knox's guilt, which, as LondonJohn takes pains on occasion to point out, is an entirely separate issue.

I'm still listening, looking, and learning.

 

[Mary_H]

This is a trick question, of course. I don't know if you mean for it to be or not, but it is.

I came to the conclusion many years ago that the only certain way it is possible to second guess the conclusions of a jury is to have been a member of that jury. It is possible to develop different conclusions over time, but it is generally much less simple or obvious than partisans present it to be.

Yes, I know that juries can make mistakes, and I hope I will be spared a deluge of anecdotes to that effect, because that has nothing to do with my point.

I have not come to the conclusion that this verdict was in error. Even if I had, that would not address the question of Knox's guilt, which, as LondonJohn takes pains on occasion to point out, is an entirely separate issue.

I'm still listening, looking, and learning.

Thank you. No, I did not mean it to be a trick question, but I notice you didn't answer it.

There might not be as many anecdotes about mistaken juries as you expect, because Italian juries include judges, which sets them apart from most of our experiences of juries.

 

[loverofzion]

How unfortunate for her. One would think they would have tried her for lying to the police instead of for murder.

Thank you for the explanation.

That would certainly lead them to question WHY she had lied, don't you think?
By definition one lies to hide something.

 

[loverofzion]

Well, you're certainly entitled to your own opinion, and I'll defend your right to express it against any challenges.

And opinion it is.
What evidence Mary do you have that the police continued to question her after she placed herself at the murder and before she had a lawyer?
What were the "many documents" that she signed?
And why do you seem to think that she had relinquished her "free will?"

 

[quadraginta]

Thank you. No, I did not mean it to be a trick question, but I notice you didn't answer it.

Oh, I answered it. It just wasn't the answer you wanted to hear. That can be one of the problems with trick questions, the answers are liable to be tricky as well.

There might not be as many anecdotes about mistaken juries as you expect, because Italian juries include judges, which sets them apart from most of our experiences of juries.

I used the term"juries" as a matter of brevity. I understand the differing terminology, and after all this time in these threads perhaps even some of the differences in practice, but it really doesn't change any of the substance of my comment. I think that still translates quite well between the two.

 

[Fulcanelli]

My understanding was that when Knox, by her own account, placed herself as a participant at the scene of the murder her status changed from a witness being interviewed about circumstances surrounding the crime to a suspect being charged with involvement in it, at which point they had to stop asking questions until she had legal assistance present.

They weren't allowed to ask any more questions.

I suppose it would be interesting to contemplate why Knox chose to continue to volunteer certain details and not others, but I don't think that's what you meant.

Close, but not quite. As you say, once she had incriminated herself they had to change her status from one of witness to that of formal suspect and halt the interview. But, her continued questioning did not depend on the presence of a lawyer. The fact is, the police are no longer permitted to question or hear suspects, whether a lawyer is present or not. Only a judge can question suspects (with a lawyer present) and only a judge can hear suspects (in the form of voluntary statements). Hence why, when the police concluded the questioning and Amanda then demanded to be heard as she wished to make a statement, Mignini had to be dragged out of his bed for only he or another judge could hear her. Whilst he could hear her without the presence of a lawyer, it also meant her statement could not be used against her in court (although for certain reasons that would later change) but could be used to further the investigation. If the judge wished to interrogate her, then a lawyer MUST be present by law. After she was interrogated on the night of the 5th by the police, the next time she was interrogated was by Mignini in December at which time two lawyers were present. She was also questioned by Judge Matteini in court on the 9th Nov at which time she also had lawyers present.

 

[Mary_H]

And opinion it is.
What evidence Mary do you have that the police continued to question her after she placed herself at the murder and before she had a lawyer?
What were the "many documents" that she signed?
And why do you seem to think that she had relinquished her "free will?"

This has all been documented here before, l-o-z, fairly recently, as a matter of fact. Instead of finding it for you, I will direct you to the "In their own words" section of your favorite website. Look for Amanda's trial testimony.

It is repeated several times during the questioning at trial that Amanda's first interrogation ended with her signing something at 1:45 a.m. on November 6th, then that her second interrogation ended with her signing something at 5:45 a.m. on November 6th Then around midday, she was brought several more documents to sign, including the arrest warrant, after which she was incarcerated.

She offered her "gift" declaration from her prison cell the evening of the 6th. She still had not seen a lawyer.

If you think someone who is locked up has free will, that is your privilege, but I don't agree. They certainly don't have freedom of choice. As a matter of fact, Italian law specifies that even a witness must be provided with a lawyer, if their freedom of movement is restrained. The law recognizes that a witness under those circumstances is in need of the protection of legal counsel.

 

[Fulcanelli]

It is repeated several times during the questioning at trial that Amanda's first interrogation ended with her signing something at 1:45 a.m. on November 6th, then that her second interrogation ended with her signing something at 5:45 a.m. on November 6th Then around midday, she was brought several more documents to sign, including the arrest warrant, after which she was incarcerated.

That wasn't a "second interrogation", it was a voluntary statement. After her interrogation ending at 1:45 am she was not interrogated again until December.

If you think someone who is locked up has free will, that is your privilege, but I don't agree. They certainly don't have freedom of choice. As a matter of fact, Italian law specifies that even a witness must be provided with a lawyer, if their freedom of movement is restrained. The law recognizes that a witness under those circumstances is in need of the protection of legal counsel.

No, it does not. There is no legal requirement witnesses must have lawyers.

And when she was "locked up", she was locked up as a suspect, not as a witness. She was a suspect from 1:45 am.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Yes. I do see the pattern.

It is repeated in these threads quite often. A pattern of argument by anecdote.

"See? It happened over there, that time, so it must be what happened here, this time."

I find it less than persuasive. Repetition does nothing to change that.

No one that I have read here has seriously questioned that intimidation can happen. The real question is whether or not it happened this time. Attempts to assert that it did by addressing this time in particular started out with claims of fifty hour "brutal" interrogations with deprivation of food, water, and sleep, and somehow always seem to end up being a couple of hours of interview after the kids came in from their pizza dinner.

Then the anecdotes start up again.

Boring. Not persuasive.

I'm sorry you find my comments boring. Perhaps I should point out that you have no obligation to read them, much less respond. But since you did respond, I will do likewise.

It happens that others besides ourselves are concerned with the problem of resolving anecdotal information into something that is generally useful. One such individual is Gregg McCrary, a retired FBI agent who contributed to a book called Criminal Investigative Failures. McCrary has studied confessions to figure out how it is possible to determine whether they are true or false. His conclusion is as follows:

To be considered reliable, a confession must have both internal and external validity; that is, it must be consistent with itself and with the external evidence. Professional law enforcement investigators understand that a confession is not an end to the investigation, as it must then be subjected to a vigorous follow-up investigation. A true confession typically contains a wealth of specific details that not only are consistent with the crime and the crime scene, but also includes new information beyond what is known by investigators. A confession's validity is strengthened through corroboration; it is weakend when the evidence does not support its claims.

With that in mind, here are Amanda's statements of November 6, 2007.

1:45: Last Thursday 1st November, day on which I usually work, while I was in the apartment of my boyfriend Raffaele, at about 20.30 I received a message from Patrick on my mobile, telling me that that evening the pub would remain closed because there were no people, therefore I didn’t have to go to work.
I replied to the message saying that we would meet immediately, therefore I went out telling my boyfriend that I had to go to work. I wish to state first that in the afternoon I had smoked a joint with Raffaele, therefore I felt confused because I do not usually make use of narcotics nor harder drugs.
I met Patrick soon after at the basketball court of Piazza Grimana and we went home. I do not remember if Meredith was already there or if she came later. I find it difficult to remember those moments but Patrick had sex with Meredith with whom he was infatuated but I do not remember well if Meredith had been threatened before. I vaguely remember that he killed her.

5:45: I wish to relate spontaneously what happened because these events have deeply bothered me and I am really afraid of Patrick, the African boy who owns the pub called “Le Chic” located in Via Alessi where I work periodically. I met him in the evening of November 1st 2007, after sending him a reply message saying “I will see you”. We met soon after at about 21.00 at the basketball court of Piazza Grimana. We went to my apartment in Via della Pergola n. 7. I do not clearly remember if Meredith was already at home or if she came later, what I can say is that Patrick and Meredith went into Meredith’s room, while I think I stayed in the kitchen. I cannot remember how long they stayed together in the room but I can only say that at a certain point I heard Meredith screaming and as I was scared I plugged up my hears. Then I do not remember anything, I am very confused. I do not remember if Meredith was screaming and if I heard some thuds too because I was upset, but I imagined what could have happened.

Let's itemize the assertions in these statements and score their accuracy according to what we know.

1:45:

1. Patrick told Amanda not to come to work because the pub would remain closed. T/F: False, because we know now that he was there all night and the place was open.

2. Amanda told Raffaele she was leaving to go to work. T/F: False, according to the authorities, because Raffaele is in prison too.

3. Amanda smoked a joint in the afternoon with Raffaele. T/F: True.

4. Amanda does not usually make use of narcotics or harder drugs. T/F: True if you believe her and the people who know her; false if you believe Peter Quennell.

5. Amanda met Patrick at the basketball court. T/F: False.

6. Amanda went to her apartment with Patrick. T/F: False.

7. Amanda doesn't remember if Meredith was home or came home later. T/F: Unknown.

8. Patrick had sex with Meredith. T/F: False.

9. Patrick killed Meredith. T/F: False.


5:45:

10. Amanda is afraid of Patrick. T/F: Unknown.

11. Patrick owns a pub. T/F: True.

12. Patrick and Meredith went into Meredith's room. T/F: False.

13. Amanda stayed in the kitchen. T/F: Unknown.

14. Amanda heard Meredith scream. T/F: Unknown.

15. Amanda plugged her ears. T/F: Unknown.

16. Amanda doesn't remember anything after the point where she plugged her ears. T/F: Unknown.

17. Amanda doesn't remember if she heard any thuds. T/F: Unknown.

18. Amanda imagined what could have happened. T/F: Unknown.

Of these 18 assertions, seven are known to be false. Two or three are known to be true, but they don't relate to what happened that night. The rest may or may not be true, depending on what you think happened. I am curious therefore - what exactly in these statements strikes you as having the ring of truth? Do you think McCrary would vouch for the authenticity of these statements? Or do you think McCrary is just another phony who should be dismissed out of hand, like Paul Ciolino and Steve Moore?

 

[Mary_H]

Close, but not quite. As you say, once she had incriminated herself they had to change her status from one of witness to that of formal suspect and halt the interview. But, her continued questioning did not depend on the presence of a lawyer. The fact is, the police are no longer permitted to question or hear suspects, whether a lawyer is present or not. Only a judge can question suspects (with a lawyer present) and only a judge can hear suspects (in the form of voluntary statements). Hence why, when the police concluded the questioning and Amanda then demanded to be heard as she wished to make a statement, Mignini had to be dragged out of his bed for only he or another judge could hear her. Whilst he could hear her without the presence of a lawyer, it also meant her statement could not be used against her in court (although for certain reasons that would later change) but could be used to further the investigation. If the judge wished to interrogate her, then a lawyer MUST be present by law. After she was interrogated on the night of the 5th by the police, the next time she was interrogated was by Mignini in December at which time two lawyers were present. She was also questioned by Judge Matteini in court on the 9th Nov at which time she also had lawyers present.

If you read Amanda's testimony, you find the lawyers posing questions about two interrogations -- one at 1:45 a.m. and one at 5:45 a.m. You also find them specifying that the 1:45 interrogation took place outside of the presence of the pubblico ministero (Mignini), while the 5:45 one took place in the presence of the pubblico ministero.

When the lawyers ask questions about the 5:45 interrogation, they describe some of what Amanda wrote in her statement at that time. What she wrote in response to the 5:45 interrogation is not the same material as what she wrote in her "free will" or "gift" statement later that day.

Is there some evidence somewhere that Amanda demanded to make a statement at 5:45 a.m, which led to Mignini being called to the station to hear it? As I recall, Mignini has said in the past that he did not question Amanda, because once she placed herself at the crime scene at the 1:45 interrogation, she was a suspect but had no attorney. According to trial testimony and questioning, though, he did question her at 5:45.

Neither the 1:45 nor the 5:45 statement was allowed, of course, which may be why nobody at the trial seemed too upset by the fact that Mignini broke the law.

 

[Machiavelli]

By comparing Amanda's statements to Rudy's fingerprint, you suggest that statements are as conclusive as physical evidence. There are a couple of problems with this:

1. Amanda didn't confess, and her statement does not comport with the known facts.
2. No record exists to prove (or disprove) what Amanda really said. We have her hand-written note, in which she says she is unsure of her memory, and we have two statements typed up by someone else for her signature.

That's not the probative equal of a bloody fingerprint in the room where Meredith was killed.

No, you are still not considering the actual balance of probative value of physical presence and statements. It is not true that physical presence itself is more incriminating than statements. Guilt does not equate to physical presence on a murder scene. A person can be present on the crime scene and be innocent, or can be absent and be guilty. Guilt is defined as a position of responsability towards the crime, not as presence.
You are wrong about the probative value of Rudy's fingerprint: that fingerprint is an evidence of his presence, but the evidence of Rudy Guede's guilt does not derive from that fingerprint. It derives from his lack of credibility, from his being incapable to give innocent or credible explanations for physical findings. After all it is Rudy's statements that define his guilt, not a fingerprint or footprints alone. Those who believe he must be guilty because he fled the scene are also wrong: innocent people can run away and Rudy, some time after running away, also contacted people saying he wanted to come back and cooperate with authorities, then took a train to Italy. It would be a wrong and biased method to assume that one defendant can't have reasons different from guilt just because he is Rudy.

 

[pilot padron]

To me it looks like a typical autobiographical summary of her experience and education -- a curriculum vitae. It can't really be counted as boastful for someone to reflect that they have accomplished a lot, if it's simply the facts.

The language and the attendance arguments have never made sense to me.

... obviously attending the sessions doesn't ensure one will think one way or another about the evidence.

More important is that it doesn't matter if a person is fluent in ten languages and sits in the courtroom all day long,

Barbie Nadeau almost always fails to cite sources for her information, misleading her readers by offering her opinion as fact.
I don't think she even believes Amanda and Raffaele are guilty --
I think her entire approach is tabloidesque, to attract readers.

1) Your use of the much more sophisticated, all encompassing terminology "curriculum vitae" is ever so superior to my.. "self written how great I am" description of Dempsey's web page.
However it does not lessen the reason I cited to find her aforementioned web page to be "less than breathtaking", which again, is:
"Many specific points there have been at best questioned, and at worst proven inaccurate and overly boastful by TJMK."

2). The Nadeau superior language fluency and much superior trial attendance relative Dempsey as well as Nadeau not requiring employment of a local Freelancer for the purpose of equalizing her above deficiencies just makes a lot of sense as an argument to me and makes Nadeau my preferred source.

3) I do not believe I ever said nor even insinuated this valid point you make:"attending the sessions doesn't ensure one will think one way or another about the evidence."
What I still say is that much greater attendance at the actual trial by Nadeau instead of Dempsey's use of surrogates and need of Interpreter help to read transcript of many session she did not attend makes what Nadeau writes (and opines) more credible to me.
Additionally the US system of surrogate jurors is a strong indication of the value of complete attendance by one who must determine (or writes about) guilt or innocence

4) What you think, (ie below A-D) is respected by me due to your well above average knowledge of facts.
But still accepted distinctly as thoughts that are "yours" and not "ours"

4A) Fails to cite sources ( well aware of how that most particularly irritates you personally, Mary
4B ) Offers opinion as fact ( definite fallacy, but certainly one few of us, especially in discussion forums are immune from, and most recognize difference and utilize accordingly
4C) Believes AK and RS are guilty (neither you nor myself are privileged to the not vocalized nor written beliefs of others
4D My belief is that in fact Dempsey's book is much more tabloid like, and in fact required employment of Freelance assistance to rush in print at expense of full research and accuracy ..."to attract readers"
CITEeruse some of favorable/unfavorable reviews of each book on Amazon's reader review pages at your leisure

 

[Mary_H]

That wasn't a "second interrogation", it was a voluntary statement. After her interrogation ending at 1:45 am she was not interrogated again until December.

According to the transcript of the trial testimony, there was a second interrogation at 5:45.

No, it does not. There is no legal requirement witnesses must have lawyers.

You are right; I misspoke. Here is a corrected version of what I meant to convey:

The law is very clear: A suspect must not be interrogated without a lawyer.

Once a suspect, an interrogation must be interrupted, the suspect read his or her rights to remain silent and be provided a lawyer. Italian law does not allow waiver of one's right to counsel. Even if a suspect doesn't want a lawyer, the authorities are required to appoint one.

If a suspect's freedom of movement is hindered, the interrogation must be videotaped.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/412696_knox30.html

And when she was "locked up", she was locked up as a suspect, not as a witness. She was a suspect from 1:45 am.

loverofzion asked me why I thought Amanda had relinquished her free will; I responded to that question, not to the question of whether or not she was a witness or a suspect.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I'm sorry you find my comments boring. Perhaps I should point out that you have no obligation to read them, much less respond. But since you did respond, I will do likewise.

It happens that others besides ourselves are concerned with the problem of resolving anecdotal information into something that is generally useful. One such individual is Gregg McCrary, a retired FBI agent who contributed to a book called Criminal Investigative Failures. McCrary has studied confessions to figure out how it is possible to determine whether they are true or false. His conclusion is as follows:

The problem with your anecdotes Charlie, is not only do they at best hold only passing similarities to THIS case, none of your anecdotes are from Italy, which is not only a different country with a different culture, but also an entirely different legal system with an entirely different legal ideology/ethos.

You keep trying to hammer square pegs into round holes.

 

[Machiavelli]

Is there some evidence somewhere that Amanda demanded to make a statement at 5:45 a.m, which led to Mignini being called to the station to hear it? As I recall, Mignini has said in the past that he did not question Amanda, because once she placed herself at the crime scene at the 1:45 interrogation, she was a suspect but had no attorney. According to trial testimony and questioning, though, he did question her at 5:45.

False.
First of all the burden of proof is reversed: there has been never an allegation of Amanda being intrrogated at 05:45 nor evidence or testimony ever brougnt about this, Amanda herself never claimed (or complaind) she was innterrogated by Mignini, above all never until before her trial.
Second, it is not true the defence maintains Amanda was interrogated. Absolutely not true. Albeit there has been sometimes a confusion in wordigs by some atteorneys (Carlo Pacelli and others) in the oral debate in court, the defence documents never claim Amanda was interrogated between 0,45 and 05,45. This claim of Mary H. is absolutely false.

 

[Fulcanelli]

If you read Amanda's testimony, you find the lawyers posing questions about two interrogations -- one at 1:45 a.m. and one at 5:45 a.m. You also find them specifying that the 1:45 interrogation took place outside of the presence of the pubblico ministero (Mignini), while the 5:45 one took place in the presence of the pubblico ministero.

When the lawyers ask questions about the 5:45 interrogation, they describe some of what Amanda wrote in her statement at that time. What she wrote in response to the 5:45 interrogation is not the same material as what she wrote in her "free will" or "gift" statement later that day.

Is there some evidence somewhere that Amanda demanded to make a statement at 5:45 a.m, which led to Mignini being called to the station to hear it? As I recall, Mignini has said in the past that he did not question Amanda, because once she placed herself at the crime scene at the 1:45 interrogation, she was a suspect but had no attorney. According to trial testimony and questioning, though, he did question her at 5:45.

Neither the 1:45 nor the 5:45 statement was allowed, of course, which may be why nobody at the trial seemed too upset by the fact that Mignini broke the law.

Those are Amanda's words and the lawyers are simply using Amanda's language so that she understands their questioning, for she clearly doesn't understand the difference. After all, you also are struggling to understand the difference. The fact remains, the the 5:45 statement was a voluntary statement, not an interrogation.

And asking someone questions to clarify points they are making in a voluntary statement does not constitute as a 'formal interrogation'. We are not talking about semantics here, but two completely different dynamics.

 

[pilot padron]

Hi pilot. Your statement that Candace Dempsey started her career as a food blogger is not accurate.
I have always been curious about the guilters' use of the title, "food blogger"
One reason it strikes me as odd is that Barbie Nadeau is a travel blogger, or at least she has been.

Mary, I have been further advised that Dempsey's Food Blogger handle was firmly attached to her initially by Seattle locals (not guilters).

This was because her SeattlePI Blog "Italian Woman at the Table" was so named to emphasize her own focus (fetish ?) on nationality, as well as the original main purpose of the Blog, which was as I alluded previously, to go out and eat at local restaurants and to.. ...blog about food.

Additionally the extent of Dempsey's "travel expertise" at that early time was limited to drives between Seattle eateries.

PS:Mary,my (admittedly extensive) discourse on preference of Authors which your query instigated applies also to the equally talented and extremely well informed RoseMontague who also expressed above her Author preference as being similar to yours; with which I also then respectfully disagree.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Neither the 1:45 nor the 5:45 statement was allowed, of course, which may be why nobody at the trial seemed too upset by the fact that Mignini broke the law.

Mignini didn't break any law. He was fully in line with all the codes. You keep saying he broke the law simply because you don't understand them, but that's not his fault.

 

[Machiavelli]

I think the general gist of the original post is that more typically the police gather evidence and then arrest suspects. I know you are going to plead a technicality here by dividing the interrogation into two parts, so that you can say in the first part they are evidence gathering. But I think that, short of a more direct confession than the police received from Amanda, usually what would be considered 'hard evidence', like fingerprints or dna, are gathered first, and then the suspects are brought in for questioning.

No. I am not dividing the interrogation in two parts. I am talking of Amanda's and Raffaele's statements to the police and to others (including Amanda's e-mail) during the days 2-5 Nov 2007. Things like the statements on locking of Meredith's door on the discovery of the body, Raffaele not remembering anything of the previous night, Amanda telling she didn't notice the blood stains until after her shower, coming back in her house to check if her computer had been stolen, Filomena's door wide open and shut at the same time, her explanation about feeling unconfortable and taking a mop thought the city to clean up Raffaele's apartment, her false statements about dinner time, inconsistent and changing statement about the previous night....

 

[Fulcanelli]

The law is very clear: A suspect must not be interrogated without a lawyer.

And we've already settled the fact that Amanda wasn't interrogated at 5:45 and that she wasn't interrogated again until December, at which time two lawyers were present and the session was taped.