Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Onofarar]

Albino Pidgeon

Kevin. previously you have said that internalised false statements were the expected result of hard interrogations now they're albino pigeons.

WOW what an insightful counter-argument. LOL!
You may want to visit another forum where you insights might have some gravatas
If you cannot comprehend argument by analogy this place is not for you.

 

[samba]

Samba,

I can't make myself watch the whole thing. But I did find an article on the Michael Crowe case. It is troubling that the authorities had to be forced to test the red sweatshirt, worn by the real killer.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/14/48hours/main649381.shtml

As difficult as it is, I encourage everyone to view that video. From the article that Halides mentions, this is a quote that is particularly interesting with regard to the Knox case:

Why did they do it? "Eventually, they wear you down to where you don't even trust yourself," says Michael. "You can't trust your memory anymore."

 

[katy_did]

The complain by Giulia Bongiorno - as described in your quote of the Massei's report - is not for the lack of counsel, it is for the lack of a decree. [...]
The fact of being imprisoned without having spoken to a lawyer instead is legal. While instead, none of them was subjected to interviews with Mignini prior to having spoken no a lawyer: this never occurred, based on what reported by Massei.

My understanding of Bongiorno's complaint here is that in order to delay the right to consult with a lawyer, a decree had to be issued stating the "specific and exceptional reasons" as to why the accused shouldn't be allowed to exercise that right in this particular case. In all other circumstances, "the right to confer with a lawyer is automatically operational from the beginning of the period of detention". So Bongiorno's complaint is that since no decree was issued in this case, and since Sollecito was nonetheless denied the right to confer with a lawyer, there was a violation of his rights to defence.

If my understanding is accurate here, I think it's quite misleading (to put it mildly) to say that the complaint "was not for the lack of counsel [but] for the lack of a decree". The two are obviously very closely connected.

 

[katy_did]

I can see what you were saying before about the decree and the dates of the various hearings, but I continue to believe that this passage in Massei says that Raffaele was denied his right to counsel when he was arrested, and that the Prosecutor was the one responsible for that:

That's my interpretation too, Mary. I think the prosecutor had to issue a decree outlining the exceptional reasons why Sollecito should be denied the automatic right to consult with legal counsel. No decree was issued, yet Sollecito was still prevented from conferring with a lawyer. So his defence team argued his right to defence was violated on that basis.

 

[daydreamer]

To Flush or Not to Flush …

(This may have been discussed earlier)
Discussions last week about the convenience key got me to thinking about the RG-MK encounter at the cottage. The way I see it, is that RG got to the cottage about 8:30 and did a quick check to see if there were any signs of activity in the cottage (upstairs or down). Having concluded that no one was home, he broke FR’s window, entered the room and did a cursory search for money in FR’s room. Existing her room he stopped at the frig for a quick snack and drink of juice. “Nature” demanded that he use the bathroom before continuing his search. While he is on the “throne” MK enters the cottage. His first instinct is to wait until she goes to her room, and then make a quiet exit through the front door as he had attempted to do in his previous burglary. To minimize noise, he decides not to flush and being unaware of the “quirky” front door, finds it locked from the inside. MK hears the activity at the front door and steps out of her room to see who had come home. She immediately recognizes RG and probably asked what he was up to. Knowing he was recognized and had just recently been caught in a burglary, he was now trapped with only 2 options: 1) bolt through FRs window and leave town, or 2) confront MK, get the key, and any money she might have. Thing went horrifically bad after that.
I know most of this is repeat, but I always wondered about the reason for the un-flushed commode.

 

[Mary_H]

Are you forgetting that Raffaele is writing in his own personal diary which supposedly he would have considered private or he likely would not have kept one at all? In this private diary he has no reason to continue a charade of any sort. He writes the truth as it happened.
You are making up a story to suit your beliefs, confirmation bias I think Kevin-Lowe describes it as.

There is a lot of controversy about why all three defendants kept diaries. I have gathered they were advised to by their lawyers, possibly because the lawyers knew the diaries might end up in the press, or be used in the trials.

At any rate, Raffaele's diary was never intended to be strictly private. It takes the form of letters to his father and sister.

I don't know how you arrive at your conclusions but the fact remains that Raffaele wrote what he wrote and he wrote that he lied in his questionings over and over because Amanda asked him to.

No, I don't think he really wrote that, at least not over and over.

 

[Mary_H]

That's my interpretation too, Mary. I think the prosecutor had to issue a decree outlining the exceptional reasons why Sollecito should be denied the automatic right to consult with legal counsel. No decree was issued, yet Sollecito was still prevented from conferring with a lawyer. So his defence team argued his right to defence was violated on that basis.

Thanks, katy. I think it's obvious both suspects were deprived of their legal rights to counsel. Raffaele's attorneys tried to address it in the ensuing hearings, but filed too late, according to Massei. Amanda's attorneys probably had a different strategy because they were taking her complaint to the Supreme Court. Raffaele's would have done the same if Raffaele had written anything down like Amanda had. Not that the Supreme Court's ruling did any good.

 

[Machiavelli]

My understanding of Bongiorno's complaint here is that in order to delay the right to consult with a lawyer, a decree had to be issued stating the "specific and exceptional reasons" as to why the accused shouldn't be allowed to exercise that right in this particular case. In all other circumstances, "the right to confer with a lawyer is automatically operational from the beginning of the period of detention". So Bongiorno's complaint is that since no decree was issued in this case, and since Sollecito was nonetheless denied the right to confer with a lawyer, there was a violation of his rights to defence.

If my understanding is accurate here, I think it's quite misleading (to put it mildly) to say that the complaint "was not for the lack of counsel [but] for the lack of a decree". The two are obviously very closely connected.

No, the complaint for the decree is purely instrumental, in order to have the interrogation with the GIP dismissed from the trial.
Your understanding of the procedure is not correct. There is no decree of arrest required to prevent the suspect from conferring with a lawyer. On the contrary, the decree of arrest tends to authorize an attorney to meet the client. However, a magistrate may take a discretional 48 hours to decide whether validate the arrest or not. The police arrest - fermo - is not a judicial detention. Sollecito was not denied to confer with a lawyer: he was denied to confer with a lawyer before the interrogation by the GIP, and was authorized to be assisted by the lawyer during the interrogation. No decree of arrest was issued during the day following the fermo (7nov).This means Mignini intended to delay their meeting with a lawyer to nov 8.
But to delay the meeting with a lawyer is not a violation of one's rights like to interrogate without a lawyer. This delay reduces the possibility by the suspect to plan a defensive strategy in a counsuel with the lawyer. But does not make the interrogation coercive or unlawful: this is not deny the suspect's rights during the interogation as others have claimed: during the interrogation the suspect's rights were respected, and he was regularly assisted by an attorney. Mignini could have signed the decree of arrest in on nov 7, and this wouldn't make it practically possible to take consuel with a lawyer, or even two hours before Raffaele's interogation by the GIP. But apparently, Mignini didn't care to sign the decre at all, just "delivered" Raffaele to the GIP and let it do to judge Matteini.
Bongiorno claims this is irregular. But this claim is instrumental: a suspect doesn't have an explicit right to confer with an attorney before speaking with a magistrate and decide their strategy in advance. The irregularity doesn't have an effect on this. Bongiorno obvioulsy only looks for a pretext to have this damaging interrogation dismissed, but the interrogation is obviously regular.

 

[el buscador]

machiavelli, from what you are saying a suspect is denied the right to see a lawyer at one of the most vulnerable times in the arrest sequence.

 

[Justinian2]

People should be allowed to have a trial in the state and country of their choice as long as that state respects a list of individual rights in the state where the crime happened. Let's, to a limited extent, outsource law to other states and countries.

Similar rights are called outsourcing and free trade. If it's thought to be good for manufacturing, it ought to really be good for court systems where quality and cost are so important. Were communications left to governments, we'd still be using the telegraph instead of cell phones, TV, satellites, radio, and other global communications. Lets bring a little competition into the court systems of the world. They need it!

I sent this idea to Obama, not that I think it will do any good.

 

[katy_did]

No, the complaint for the decree is purely instrumental, in order to have the interrogation with the GIP dismissed from the trial.

Well, my understanding of this comes from Sollecito's appeal, admittedly from quite a dense legal section! However, this is the defence argument as I understand it:

1. The right to confer with counsel is automatic, and operational from the beginning of the period of detention.

2. If the right to confer with counsel is postponed, a decree of deferral must be produced by the prosecutor, outlining the specific and exceptional reasons as to why that right should be postponed in this particular case.

3. That decree was never produced nor filed, and presumably (so the defence infer) never existed. Therefore, since Sollecito was nonetheless denied the right to confer with a lawyer, his right to defence was violated.

4. On this basis, any subsequent interrogation is rendered void, since his earlier rights weren't respected.

You say the complaint was 'purely instrumental', but I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. Obviously the defence were using this violation for a particular purpose (nullifying the Gip interrogation, as you say) but that doesn't mean the violation to Sollecito's rights didn't occur.

Your understanding of the procedure is not correct. There is no decree of arrest required to prevent the suspect from conferring with a lawyer. On the contrary, the decree of arrest tends to authorize an attorney to meet the client. However, a magistrate may take a discretional 48 hours to decide whether validate the arrest or not. The police arrest - fermo - is not a judicial detention. Sollecito was not denied to confer with a lawyer: he was denied to confer with a lawyer before the interrogation by the GIP, and was authorized to be assisted by the lawyer during the interrogation. No decree of arrest was issued during the day following the fermo (7nov).This means Mignini intended to delay their meeting with a lawyer to nov 8.
But to delay the meeting with a lawyer is not a violation of one's rights like to interrogate without a lawyer. This delay reduces the possibility by the suspect to plan a defensive strategy in a counsuel with the lawyer. But does not make the interrogation coercive or unlawful: this is not deny the suspect's rights during the interogation as others have claimed: during the interrogation the suspect's rights were respected, and he was regularly assisted by an attorney. Mignini could have signed the decree of arrest in on nov 7, and this wouldn't make it practically possible to take consuel with a lawyer, or even two hours before Raffaele's interogation by the GIP. But apparently, Mignini didn't care to sign the decre at all, just "delivered" Raffaele to the GIP and let it do to judge Matteini.
Bongiorno claims this is irregular. But this claim is instrumental: a suspect doesn't have an explicit right to confer with an attorney before speaking with a magistrate and decide their strategy in advance. The irregularity doesn't have an effect on this. Bongiorno obvioulsy only looks for a pretext to have this damaging interrogation dismissed, but the interrogation is obviously regular.

Not quite sure what you mean here - perhaps this is a response to points raised by other posters. I know that the complaint made by the defence was about the withholding of the right to confer with counsel following the beginning of the period of detention and before the interrogation before the Gip, rather than during the interrogation itself.

 

[Justinian2]

Raffaele was at home !

New Arguments from Sollecito's Team
RAFFAELE WAS AT HOME !
They are Certain Now

Meanwhile Raffaele’s defense filed new defensive documents.
One is about Raffaele’s computer: they are certain to have proven computer activity for the whole evening of the crime.

Another one is about Curatolo: they explained better why his testimony isn’t true. There weren’t discotheque buses that night, the discotheques were closed. And the problem of Curatolo’s testimony is very simple: he remembers the wrong day.​

From: http://freeamanda.livejournal.com/

Earthlings need the right to outsource justice. Primitive earth judicial systems need competition.

 

[RoseMontague]

Well, my understanding of this comes from Sollecito's appeal, admittedly from quite a dense legal section! However, this is the defence argument as I understand it:

1. The right to confer with counsel is automatic, and operational from the beginning of the period of detention.

2. If the right to confer with counsel is postponed, a decree of deferral must be produced by the prosecutor, outlining the specific and exceptional reasons as to why that right should be postponed in this particular case.

3. That decree was never produced nor filed, and presumably (so the defence infer) never existed. Therefore, since Sollecito was nonetheless denied the right to confer with a lawyer, his right to defence was violated.

4. On this basis, any subsequent interrogation is rendered void, since his earlier rights weren't respected.

You say the complaint was 'purely instrumental', but I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. Obviously the defence were using this violation for a particular purpose (nullifying the Gip interrogation, as you say) but that doesn't mean the violation to Sollecito's rights didn't occur.

I thought the whole purpose of this rule was to allow those arrested the same opportunity to speak to a lawyer before they showed up in court as those that are not detained. If this is normal, despite having such a rule, then there is something sadly wrong with the system. The appeal is also making other arguments about documents that were not filed that would have been helpful to the defense strategy and of course we also know about the problems with getting the discovery from the prosecution.

 

[RoseMontague]

New Arguments from Sollecito's Team
RAFFAELE WAS AT HOME !
They are Certain Now

Meanwhile Raffaele’s defense filed new defensive documents.
One is about Raffaele’s computer: they are certain to have proven computer activity for the whole evening of the crime.

Another one is about Curatolo: they explained better why his testimony isn’t true. There weren’t discotheque buses that night, the discotheques were closed. And the problem of Curatolo’s testimony is very simple: he remembers the wrong day.​

From: http://freeamanda.livejournal.com/

I still have my doubts about this, they may have submitted additional documents but the points about Curatolo have already been made in the appeal and I just don't see how they could have new information on the computers without getting them tested (something they are asking in the appeal). Perhaps they filed a listing of expert witnesses or something along those lines but this just does not sound right to me.

 

[el buscador]

I thought the whole purpose of this rule was to allow those arrested the same opportunity to speak to a lawyer before they showed up in court as those that are not detained. If this is normal, despite having such a rule, then there is something sadly wrong with the system. The appeal is also making other arguments about documents that were not filed that would have been helpful to the defense strategy and of course we also know about the problems with getting the discovery from the prosecution.

It looks like, Rose, that there are caveats to the rule. As per machiavelli, "However, a magistrate may take a discretional 48 hours to decide whether validate the arrest or not. The police arrest - fermo - is not a judicial detention. Sollecito was not denied to confer with a lawyer: he was denied to confer with a lawyer before the interrogation by the GIP, and was authorized to be assisted by the lawyer during the interrogation. No decree of arrest was issued during the day following the fermo (7nov).This means Mignini intended to delay their meeting with a lawyer to nov 8."

And then machiavelli goes on to explain, "But to delay the meeting with a lawyer is not a violation of one's rights like to interrogate without a lawyer. This delay reduces the possibility by the suspect to plan a defensive strategy in a counsuel with the lawyer. But does not make the interrogation coercive or unlawful: this is not deny the suspect's rights during the interogation as others have claimed: during the interrogation the suspect's rights were respected, and he was regularly assisted by an attorney."

Umm, Raffaele was granted his suspect rights and allowed to confer with a lawyer during his interrogation? First I've heard of it.

 

[RoseMontague]

The pictures of Amanda today concern me. She looks pale and sad and appears to have lost some weight. Her face appears thinner as well. PMF has posted several and there are more here:

http://www.milestonemedia.it/editorial/s?qwe=amanda+knox

 

[katy_did]

I thought the whole purpose of this rule was to allow those arrested the same opportunity to speak to a lawyer before they showed up in court as those that are not detained. If this is normal, despite having such a rule, then there is something sadly wrong with the system. The appeal is also making other arguments about documents that were not filed that would have been helpful to the defense strategy and of course we also know about the problems with getting the discovery from the prosecution.

Yes, I think you're right; the appeal says "This right [to confer with a lawyer] is justified by the need to guarantee equal treatment in terms of the effective exercise of the right to defence (articles 3, 13 and 24 of the Constitution) amongst detained suspects and those in a state of liberty". Bit of a mouthful but I think it's saying the same thing you are!

 

[Justinian2]

I simply do not understand the terrifying certainty with which guilters make claims like this.

How can anyone pretend that they know what young people they have never met, under circumstances they have never experienced, would say and do with such precision?

When these sorts of claims start sounding logical I really think that you need to take a big step back, take a few deep breaths, and consider that just maybe you are deep in the grip of confirmation bias gone rabid.

Wikipedia says this about that:

Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true.[Note 1][1] As a result, people gather evidence and recall information from memory selectively, and interpret it in a biased way. The biases appear in particular for emotionally significant issues and for established beliefs. For example, in reading about gun control, people usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and/or recall have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a stronger weighting for data encountered early in an arbitrary series) and illusory correlation (in which people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased towards confirming their existing beliefs. Later work explained these results in terms of a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In combination with other effects, this strategy can bias the conclusions that are reached. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another proposal is that people show confirmation bias because they are pragmatically assessing the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way.

Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Hence they can lead to disastrous decisions, especially in organizational, military, political and social contexts.​

Yes, I can see that. I even considered the possibility that I also am guilty. To some extent, I probably am. However, I don't ignore any actual guilter fact or reasonable theory.

I think probably that if a guilter calls you a name rather than answering a fact or plausible theory, then it is plausible that he has the dreaded 'Confirmation bias'.

 

[Jungle Jim]

I still have my doubts about this, they may have submitted additional documents but the points about Curatolo have already been made in the appeal and I just don't see how they could have new information on the computers without getting them tested (something they are asking in the appeal). Perhaps they filed a listing of expert witnesses or something along those lines but this just does not sound right to me.

Rose, have you read this person's blog entries? I'm not surprised this information was posted by Justinian2. He and the author of the blog both live on the fringes of reality.

 

[RoseMontague]

Rose, have you read this person's blog entries? I'm not surprised this information was posted by Justinian2. He and the author of the blog both live on the fringes of reality.

You can catch a rather long discussion I had with this man of action on a VewFromWilmington post in the comments section. People being different helps keep our world from being boring. I have admitted to being a bit strange myself.