Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[TomM43]

Solange305,

From page 151 in Murder in Italy, “Alternatively, Amanda would say she was not “treated like a person” until after she’d signed on the dotted line [at 5:45]. No food, no water, no bathroom breaks or naps.” So what Steve Moore said is disputed, but it is not agreed upon to be untrue.

The more general problem with your comment is that you don’t seem to be applying the same standard to ILE. We have documented their misstatements here for 11 months. Some are doubtless honest errors, but some look like lies (not disclosing that the TMB test was negative, for instance). We have also documented examples of their mistakes; the hard drives being the most recent example to resurface in this thread. Why does their credibility not suffer among the pro-guilt commenters here and elsewhere?

This is not the first post that I've read that criticizes the Italian police for telling lies to Knox. I have the impression that some are of the opinion that this is unethical, if not illegal, and unusual. And some folks seem to think that it justifies Knox’ lying. In point of fact, presenting suspects with false information is a common police technique. There are abundant reported cases holding that confessions given in response to trickery do not violate due process rights, or any other constitutional rights.

There are rules that apply to the sort of thing. Generally speaking if the false statement is "intrinsic" to the crime being investigated it is permissible. For example, it is permissible to falsely state that the suspect's fingerprints or DNA was found at the crime scene, that an eyewitness has identified the suspect, etc.

False statements that are "extrinsic" to the crime are out of bounds because they are likely to be coercive and produce false confessions. For example, telling a suspect that confessing will lead to a reduced sentence, or telling a female suspect that if she does not confess, she will lose custody of her children while she will be able to keep them if she confesses, are examples.

The police can still be credible because they generally don't try to cover up or lie about their deceptions after the interrogations, and are usually the source of the information that such tactics were used. And when they testify, they are under oath.

 

[LondonJohn]

The term "alleged" may turn up with a certain perfunctory predictability, and "accused" will be given an occasional backhanded nod, but other than that such a display would not be beyond the pale. Sometimes the media is alerted so that they can be in position in time for the arrest itself.

I've pointed this out plenty of times before. When it comes to the art and implementation of creating a media circus out of a criminal investigation Italy can only sit with humility at our knee and learn from the true masters. We've been doing it so well and so long that even the belated, ineffectual efforts of our Supreme Court to try and stifle the most egregious examples are over half a century old, and remarkably unsuccessful. Maybe unenthusiastic would be a better term.

If you'd like a few examples, and can afford to sacrifice the brain cells, just dredge up some of the episodes of Nancy Grace's nightly HLN "news" program. She is among the worst, but only a small sample of the overall quantity of sensationalized crime we are inundated with here on a daily basis.

I'm not sure of the logic of trying to defend this ludicrously prejudicial activity taking place in Perugia by saying that the same (or even worse) has a history of taking place in the USA. There used to be public lynchings in the USA too - but would that excuse the same thing happening in Perugia?

 

[LondonJohn]

This is not the first post that I've read that criticizes the Italian police for telling lies to Knox. I have the impression that some are of the opinion that this is unethical, if not illegal, and unusual. And some folks seem to think that it justifies Knox’ lying. In point of fact, presenting suspects with false information is a common police technique. There are abundant reported cases holding that confessions given in response to trickery do not violate due process rights, or any other constitutional rights.

There are rules that apply to the sort of thing. Generally speaking if the false statement is "intrinsic" to the crime being investigated it is permissible. For example, it is permissible to falsely state that the suspect's fingerprints or DNA was found at the crime scene, that an eyewitness has identified the suspect, etc.

False statements that are "extrinsic" to the crime are out of bounds because they are likely to be coercive and produce false confessions. For example, telling a suspect that confessing will lead to a reduced sentence, or telling a female suspect that if she does not confess, she will lose custody of her children while she will be able to keep them if she confesses, are examples.

The police can still be credible because they generally don't try to cover up or lie about their deceptions after the interrogations, and are usually the source of the information that such tactics were used. And when they testify, they are under oath.

This is a beautiful straw man!

What Chris was referring to is not lies told by the police to the suspects (or...ahem.."witnesses") in interrogations (or...ahem "discussions") - all of which are - as you say - a totally legitimate police tactic. Instead, it's about the lies that police told to the wider public and the courts. They constitute a rather long list, and they all served to be prejudicial to Knox, Sollecito, Guede and Lumumba. They encompass footprints, bleach receipts, Harry Potter books, blood tests, and a good deal more.

 

[platonov]

Solange305,

From page 151 in Murder in Italy, “Alternatively, Amanda would say she was not “treated like a person” until after she’d signed on the dotted line [at 5:45]. No food, no water, no bathroom breaks or naps.” So what Steve Moore said is disputed, but it is not agreed upon to be untrue.

The more general problem with your comment is that you don’t seem to be applying the same standard to ILE. We have documented their misstatements here for 11 months. Some are doubtless honest errors, but some look like lies (not disclosing that the TMB test was negative, for instance). We have also documented examples of their mistakes; the hard drives being the most recent example to resurface in this thread. Why does their credibility not suffer among the pro-guilt commenters here and elsewhere?

Actually while Solange dealt with the larger issue regarding Moore's lie [about recanting] I see this flew under the radar.

halides1 -- Why do you keep quoting this Dempsey character; Is there anything in her work that is trustworthy ?

This 5.45 for example is false - after the 1.45 statement AK was given food/ drink whatever.
The 5.45 was a later episode after she had even more to say.

Or am I being unfair to Dempsey - did you insert the 5.45 ?

.

 

[pilot padron]

Daily Mail typo and Canonization

Well, here it is also mentioned in a report from the Daily Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...737900/Amanda-Knox-guilty...-but-of-what.html

And the Daily Mail (this time with named quotes attached):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...737900/Amanda-Knox-guilty...-but-of-what.html

Do you have any good reason to believe that it didn't happen?

Errrrr....

Far be it from me to be burdened with the title of 'Documentation Doctor.'

But since you have made a couple of subsequent posts, may I ever so respectfully point out that in your above argument you give us a build up to a Daily Mail Article, but then you repeat the same URL from the Telegraph ??

Since we are on topic of Daily Mail, I also find it somewhat disingenuous that 99 times out of 100 when a pro guilt person cites the Daily Mail, the pro innocent cabal here immediately excoriates the Mail as a tabloid trash, and in fact not only part of the omnipresent, all encompassing conspiracy, but a major factor in 'poisoning the jurists against Amanda, resulting in an erroneous (but unanimous) conviction of the Seattle Sweetheart.

Yet here your '100th cite' since Ms Dempsey canonizes the Mail on page 159, it becomes your Holy Grail requiring genuflections as it is held aloft as a final confirmation.

 

[tsig]

Platonov,

The part you did not put into bold was “but I want to make very clear that [these events seem more unreal to me that what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele's house. Here is a bit more from Amanda, “The police have told me that they have hard evidence that places me at the house, my house, at the time of Meredith's murder. I don't know what proof they are talking about, but if this is true, it means I am very confused and my dreams must be real.”

I would have released Patrick, or at the very least made a diligent effort to check his alibi at this point. I would have continued to investigate and kept Patrick under surveillance, but I would have let the forensics guide the investigation, not Dr. Giobbi’s concerns about swiveling hips.
Or better yet, I would have done the whole investigation differently from day one, perhaps as Ron Hendry suggested.

This type remark doesn't help your argument.

 

[katy_did]

There are rules that apply to the sort of thing. Generally speaking if the false statement is "intrinsic" to the crime being investigated it is permissible. For example, it is permissible to falsely state that the suspect's fingerprints or DNA was found at the crime scene, that an eyewitness has identified the suspect, etc.

False statements that are "extrinsic" to the crime are out of bounds because they are likely to be coercive and produce false confessions. For example, telling a suspect that confessing will lead to a reduced sentence, or telling a female suspect that if she does not confess, she will lose custody of her children while she will be able to keep them if she confesses, are examples.

'Intrinsic' false statements made by the police can also induce false confessions, if those confessions are of the coerced-internalized type. The general process by which those confessions may come to be made is that the police: (a) tell the suspect they have hard evidence they were at the scene when the crime was committed; and (b) give them a plausible reason why they may not remember having been there. Both these factors were present in Amanda's case: she repeats several times in her hand-written statement that the police have told her they have 'hard evidence' showing she was at the house at the time of the murder, and it appears the interpreter told her of an incident where she'd repressed memories of an event because it was too traumatic, clearly implying Knox may have done the same. The danger of inducing a false confession is one of the reasons these kinds of tactics are not allowed in many countries.

The kind of confession you're talking about as possibly induced by 'extrinsic' false statements to the police are only those of a coerced-compliant type, in which the suspect gives into police pressure through fear or to end the interrogation. Coerced-internalized confessions wouldn't be induced by those kind of statements, and this is the model into which Amanda's statement fits most closely.

 

[LondonJohn]

Errrrr....

Far be it from me to be burdened with the title of 'Documentation Doctor.'

But since you have made a couple of subsequent posts, may I ever so respectfully point out that in your above argument you give us a build up to a Daily Mail Article, but then you repeat the same URL from the Telegraph ??

Since we are on topic of Daily Mail, I also find it somewhat disingenuous that 99 times out of 100 when a pro guilt person cites the Daily Mail, the pro innocent cabal here immediately excoriates the Mail as a tabloid trash, and in fact not only part of the omnipresent, all encompassing conspiracy, but a major factor in 'poisoning the jurists against Amanda, resulting in an erroneous (but unanimous) conviction of the Seattle Sweetheart.

Yet here your '100th cite' since Ms Dempsey canonizes the Mail on page 159, it becomes your Holy Grail requiring genuflections as it is held aloft as a final confirmation.

Holy Grail? Canonisations? Are you feeling OK?

As you so succinctly pointed out, I erroneously pasted the same link in twice. Here's the link to the Mail article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...iaries-new-evidence-Meredith-murder-case.html

And, by the way, if you bothered to read back, the cites from UK newspapers were in direct response to the assertion that the police parade had NOT been reported by the UK press.

Lastly, are you ever going to actually engage in debates about the case here, or have you now resorted to merely commenting on other posters' posts? Just so I know whether to put you on "ignore", you know....

 

[platonov]

This type remark doesn't help your argument.

To be fair it could hardly hurt it, its dead in the water to begin with - a swipe at the nasty cops that arrested AK wont make a difference either way as regards this particular argument.

.

 

[LondonJohn]

This type remark doesn't help your argument.

Why not? It happened.

 

[Machiavelli]

Well, if you can't see (or don't want to see) any sort of connection between the breathtakingly presumptive and incriminating comments made on the 6th November 2007 by the most senior police officer in Perugia, and the way the subsequent investigation and prosecution proceeded (not to mention it being a revealing insight into the prevailing attitude of the Perugia law enforcement community), then so be it. There's nothing more I can say, really.

Withnail is right - the Monty Python "Argument" sketch does seem to come to mind all too often.

Everything is connected in our reality, in a philosiphical sense. The attitude of the questore De Felice is just not meaningful in the case. It is a show for the media. The press want something to write for the day, you have to feed them and get along with them to avoid trouble.
Essentially what they told is what they thought, and was correct in a significant degree. Some words suggesting an eccessive tone of certanity could be disputable. But they had arrested three people. You don't arrest somebody you think is innocent.

 

[odeed]

What is your evidence?

You are making the claim that they were paraded around Perugia, and I tried to search for original quote but only ended with quotes made by you making the same claim on blogs.

Well, here it is also mentioned in a report from the Daily Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...737900/Amanda-Knox-guilty...-but-of-what.html

And the Daily Mail (this time with named quotes attached):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...737900/Amanda-Knox-guilty...-but-of-what.html

Do you have any good reason to believe that it didn't happen?

Since both links are for the Telegraph article dated 6 Dec 2009, the only quote of convoy was:

On November 6, 2007 – just four days after Meredith’s body was discovered – a 10-strong convoy of police cars, sirens blaring, blasted through the winding streets of Perugia. The night before, officers had spent hours interviewing Knox and her boyfriend as well as Patrick Lumumba – a local bar-owner whom Knox placed at the scene but who has since been exonerated. As the convoy approached the police station, officers gave the crowds outside a triumphant thumbs-up sign: they were confident they had nailed their killers. Knox had confessed. ‘‘Case closed,’’ as one officer was to say.

I thought they were going to prison.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...iaries-new-evidence-Meredith-murder-case.html

same story as the telegraph, nothing about parading the three around Perugia.

 

[TomM43]

This is a beautiful straw man!

What Chris was referring to is not lies told by the police to the suspects (or...ahem.."witnesses") in interrogations (or...ahem "discussions") - all of which are - as you say - a totally legitimate police tactic. Instead, it's about the lies that police told to the wider public and the courts. They constitute a rather long list, and they all served to be prejudicial to Knox, Sollecito, Guede and Lumumba. They encompass footprints, bleach receipts, Harry Potter books, blood tests, and a good deal more.

OK. There have been posts within the last week or so complaining about the police lying to Knox. There was some discussion that the police lied to Sollecito about what Knox was saying. The only that I can find off-hand is Kaosium two days ago:

"I was wondering if you could post the list of 'lies' Amanda and Raffaele are accused of telling. I keep hearing about them but the ones I've seen posted by those thinking them to be evidence of guilt always seem to be inconsequential or a response to lies told to them. I've never seen an actual list so I could judge them as a whole."

ETA: The one example of a police lie that Halides gave was their telling Knox her HIV test was positive.

Not so much of a straw man.

 

[LondonJohn]

Everything is connected in our reality, in a philosiphical sense. The attitude of the questore De Felice is just not meaningful in the case. It is a show for the media. The press want something to write for the day, you have to feed them and get along with them to avoid trouble.
Essentially what they told is what they thought, and was correct in a significant degree. Some words suggesting an eccessive tone of certanity could be disputable. But they had arrested three people. You don't arrest somebody you think is innocent.

What a pile of rubbish.

No, you're right. You don't arrest someone you think is innocent. But when you stand in front of the media the next day, you tell the media whom you've arrested, and the circumstances of the arrest. And pretty much nothing more than that.

And you're on a different planet if you think that "avoiding trouble" and "getting along with the media" is more important to Perugia's most senior policemen than serving the interests of justice.

Your untenable defence of De Felice in this instance is, unfortunately, indicative of your complete refusal to view things through an objective lens. Whether De Felice's words had a detrimental effect on the judicial process is near-impossible to gauge, of course. But to suggest that it was all ok, and "part of the game" is both wrong and perverse.

(This reminds me of the day that Dennis Rader (the BTK killer) was arrested: the Wichita Chief of Police held a presser where he announced "Bottom line: BTK is arrested". This attracted a certain amount of criticism, despite the fact that Rader had fully confessed, an incriminating computer disc had been conclusively linked to Rader's work computer, and the police had DNA confirmation of Rader's involvement in some of the killings.)

 

[LondonJohn]

same story as the telegraph, nothing about parading the three around Perugia.

Oh really?

"It is November 6, four days after Meredith's body was discovered, and a ten-strong convoy of police cars, sirens blaring, blasts through the winding streets of Perugia.

Officers have spent the previous night interviewing their three prime suspects, Knox, Sollecito and bar owner Patrick Lumumba.

As they approach the police station, they extend their arms through the open windows and wave their fists in triumph at the crowd.

'It was an incredible sight,' said someone present on the day.

'I have seen the police behave like this only once before, and that was when they arrested one of the country's most notorious Mafia dons. They were celebrating, saying: "Look at us, look at what we have achieved."'

As the Press gathered, an officer stepped forward and uttered two words: 'Caso chiuso' - case closed."


What were you saying again...?

 

[odeed]

Oh really?

"It is November 6, four days after Meredith's body was discovered, and a ten-strong convoy of police cars, sirens blaring, blasts through the winding streets of Perugia.

Officers have spent the previous night interviewing their three prime suspects, Knox, Sollecito and bar owner Patrick Lumumba.

As they approach the police station, they extend their arms through the open windows and wave their fists in triumph at the crowd.

'It was an incredible sight,' said someone present on the day.

'I have seen the police behave like this only once before, and that was when they arrested one of the country's most notorious Mafia dons. They were celebrating, saying: "Look at us, look at what we have achieved."'

As the Press gathered, an officer stepped forward and uttered two words: 'Caso chiuso' - case closed."


What were you saying again...?

That neither article mentions anything about parading the three around Perugia, and one article mentions the convoy approaching the police station and not the prison.

 

[Machiavelli]

May i ask if you've ever been to Britain, Machiavelli? I'm not trying to blow Britain's trumpet particularly (God knows the weather sucks) but i would say that our police force is more professional in every single detail than the Italian police.

The Italian police in this case have this whole thing of parading suspects before the press and announcing that the case is solved with some stupid half-baked theory... these things just simply don't happen in Britain.

It looks like the police in some South American dictatorship or somewhere like that.

The police in certain countries has a very different style from ours. These things do not happen in common-law system like Sweden or Britain. But the Italian system is entirely different: the police doesn't have power to investigate o formal suspects. When a decree of arrest is signed on a person or a person is declared a suspect, the police duty is usually finished and they just release their conclusions. Their conclusions are not expected to be the final answer on a case.

Today for example a mandate of arrest was issued agains Julian Assange in Sweden. This was signed by a prosecutor on the motivation that "he needs to interrogate him". This procedure would be absurd in Italy: to have a prosecutor's decree of arrest, you must have a document already saying the person is formally a suspect of a crime. In other words, the person must be publicly accused (albeit not charged). When you have this paper, the police cannot deal with the person any more and they loose their power on the investigation. At this point, they only issue a press release like "we arrested a rapist. We think Assange sexually assaulted X and Y". The press is satisfied and they leave the police alone.

 

[pilot padron]

Holy Grail? Canonisations? Are you feeling OK?

As you so succinctly pointed out, I erroneously pasted the same link in twice. Here's the link to the Mail article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...iaries-new-evidence-Meredith-murder-case.html

And, by the way, if you bothered to read back, the cites from UK newspapers were in direct response to the assertion that the police parade had NOT been reported by the UK press.

Lastly, are you ever going to actually engage in debates about the case here, or have you now resorted to merely commenting on other posters' posts? Just so I know whether to put you on "ignore", you know....

1) May I also ask if you are feeling well since:
A) Your question to me seems strangely motivated and positioned in a civil and polite discussion ?
B) If you were also 'feeling well' when someone requests a link that you erroneously omit, it would indicate to most casual observers that this someone has 'been bothered to read back' the one cite you correctly posted and sought supplemental materiel to read from the one you erroneously omitted.
No??Am I missing something else ??

2) Without descending to a futile definition of the word 'is' type of parsing your personally seemingly significant difference in your argument between 'commenting on other posters' versus 'engaging in debate', may I ask you to consider:

A) How many of the 'debates engaged in here' today have not been exhaustively elaborated upon and considered from every possible point ad infinitum and repeatedly so, here in the past.
So much so that engaging for the sake of engaging or engaging just to satisfy you is neither a productive nor efficient use my time.

B) If the part of your above argument about 'putting me on ignore' is either a threat or incentive for me to argue on this 'evidence based lively discussion site' *only* when and where and how *you* prefer...please do put me on ignore at once, and/or promptly advise me of your elevation to Moderator status here.

 

[quadraginta]

I'm not sure of the logic of trying to defend this ludicrously prejudicial activity taking place in Perugia by saying that the same (or even worse) has a history of taking place in the USA. There used to be public lynchings in the USA too - but would that excuse the same thing happening in Perugia?

I can't imagine what I might have said to give you the weird idea that I was "defending" anything. I would have thought that my choice of phrasing would have clearly indicated otherwise, even to the less adept of readers.

I was responding to Withnail's insinuation that such a practice was restricted to "the police in some South American dictatorship or somewhere like that."

It isn't.

Nor is it some historical memory. If anything the deplorable practice has become much more intense in recent years. The immediacy of modern communications has not been beneficial in this regard.

 

[RoseMontague]

That neither article mentions anything about parading the three around Perugia, and one article mentions the convoy approaching the police station and not the prison.

Sounds like a big parade to me. Do they have to hit all four corners of Perugia to consider it a parade? The point is made regardless of how you are defining driving around Perugia or parade.