Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Withnail1969]

Why, in order to type up the confession, do they need total recall? Not that remembering what she said might not be important for other reasons, it's just not that important for the confession document that she signed. Presumably police were able to interview/interrogate people before recording became possible? Naturally that allowed some of them to get away with a few things, but having to hold in their heads every word that the witness/suspect said is a problem that was solved long before audio recording became common, let alone video recording.

There can surely be no reasonable justification for not recording the interrogation, not in this day and age.

 

[shuttlt]

There can surely be no reasonable justification for not recording the interrogation, not in this day and age.

My post was in response to the specific suggestion that the police could not have remembered what Amanda had said in order to produce a confession document without recording her words.

In answer to your question. I'm inclined to agree that these days interrogations should be recorded. Having said that there clearly are significant infrastructural demands imposed on the police in recording all interrogations. I would presume all such difficulties would have been overcome in Italy by 2007, but who knows? I suspect you are also including witnesses being formally interviewed in this question, given that it's still hotly argued what her status was... and the police and the court seem to have decided she was a witness at that point.

In any case, the Italians would hardly be unique if they didn't legally require interrogation to be recorded.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Donnino and Mignini

IIRC, The Times Online refers to Ms. Donnino as a police interpreter.

Donnino's testimony (rough translation)

PM Mignini: Lei che attivita svolge? What job do you perform?
AD: Io sono revisore traduttore interprete presso la Questura di Perugia. I am a translator/interpreter working at the Questura of Perugia.
PM: Da quanto tempo? For how long?
AD: Da piu di 22 anni. For more than 22 years.

 

[shuttlt]

So then, no, you can't provide a citation showing that Amanda asked to make a statement at 5:45 a.m.

However she deemed that she was making an unsolicited statement, which I received without her being questioned, and which was thus completely legitimate. Only in the case of a formal interrogation, with notification of criminal offences and questioning by a PM or a judge, must the person under investigation be represented by a defence lawyer, not when unsolicited statements are being made under article 374 - Law of Criminal Proceedings.

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=51

The English isn't great, but this looks to me like Mignini claiming that the 5:45am document was instigated by Amanda. He claims that she wasn't questioned. He received it from her. It was unsolicited.

Of course, it's only his word, but then again the same is true of Amanda's claim about what happened.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Katody,
Have you ever taken this picture, of the man, and "cut" him out and moved him upward to where his feet would be on the upper grate?
I did.

It shows if he were stepping on the top grates, or even the upper ledge of the window, Filomenas window sill would be at his waist.

I did it with basic Paint Shop. (Cut the man out of the picture, slide him upwards in the picture until the footing is on the upper grates/bars of the window, paste.
his knee is almost on the window sill)

There's around 1,5m between the sill and the upper grate bar. It means the guy would have the sill below his neck (unless he's really short), not at his waist. You can estimate the distance by counting the brick layers, knowing that Filomena's window is around 1,4 m high.

 

[RoseMontague]

IIRC, The Times Online refers to Ms. Donnino as a police interpreter.

Donnino's testimony (rough translation)

PM Mignini: Lei che attivita svolge? What job do you perform?
AD: Io sono revisore traduttore interprete presso la Questura di Perugia. I am a translator/interpreter working at the Questura of Perugia.
PM: Da quanto tempo? For how long?
AD: Da piu di 22 anni. For more than 22 years.

Thanks Chris but I am not sure we can trust the source on this. And how could she possibly know who she works for?

 

[RoseMontague]

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=51

The English isn't great, but this looks to me like Mignini claiming that the 5:45am document was instigated by Amanda. He claims that she wasn't questioned. He received it from her. It was unsolicited.

Of course, it's only his word, but then again the same is true of Amanda's claim about what happened.

Amanda claims she was questioned "again" at 5:45AM. It would be nice to have had it recorded.

Amanda:
They used the statements I made at 1.45 am on November 6 when I didn't not have the presence of an attorney to defend me.
I was questioned again at 5.45 am and gave "spontaneous statements," but these are not admissible due to the status I had acquired in the mean time.
Both are violations of Article 63 cpp.
Supreme Court:
Statements released without the proper legal guarantees can't be used contra se (against the person) --not even against other suspects-- when there is already circumstantial evidence against the person who makes them.
But when the person is heard as a witness the total lock-up (can't be used at all, not against the one who makes them nor against other suspects) provided by Article 63 cpp does not apply.
In this case, the fact that he is just a witness and as such outside the facts protects him from possible abuse by the investigators (Cass.Sez.Un. 13/2/1997).

 

[Supernaut]

Francesco Maresca, Mignini stooge

Maresca was “hired” by the Kerchers within a few days of Meredith's death.

The cosiness of this man with Mignini has always been a little too obvious – remember Migini’s delighted embrace of Maresca when he got the news that (in Maresca’s words) the “evidence was good” and AK and RS could be held in custody while a case was manufactured, I mean built against them?

There can be little doubt that the Prosecutor's office, i.e. Miginini, steered the Kerchers in his direction. In fact I would be willing to bet Mignini had 'appointed' him BEFORE they even arrived, and that Maresca was waiting for them at the airport. From that point on, all the Kerchers heard what was what he and Mignini wanted them to hear (in addition to the constant stream of assassination the Miginini's officw was feeding the press)..

Maresca has demonstrated that he is a shyster who is unprincipled even by the ignoble standards of his profession - the stunt he pulled last Saturday during AK's opening declaration, to give himself another opportunity to whore in front of the cameras beggars belief, and that is NOT hyperbole.

He has been tag-teaming with Mignini (and other of the latter's cronies) to manipulate the Kerchers from day-one.

I posted a while back about how this would have been made quite easy for them to accomplish.

When the family heard about the circumstances of Merediths's murder, while she was alone in the flat, I am quite certain that their immediate feeling would have been that she had been deserted, and that Amanda in particular had betrayed an implicit mutual obligation for the two women, the two young foreigners in the household, to watch out for each other. Hence they were easily stirred to anger against her, long before allegations that she was actually the murderer were made.

Mignini is quite obviously, and as a matter of necessity, a well-practised manipulator of peoples' minds and emotions (and probably their venality), as is Maresca in all liklihood. Their taking advantage of a murder-victim’s family’s grief, confusion and anger for their own corrupt purposes is disgusting beyond words. If anyone ever deserved to be behind bars, these two do.

 

[Supernaut]

AK "was always laughing and smiling while testifying".

I notice that someone here is parrotting the "Amanda was always laughing and smiling while testifying" PMF blather, as they were doing some months back.

I thought I had straightened this individual out on the issue, but apparently not.

The media were not present in the courtroom during the trial proceedings, hence the ONLY publically available visual records are grainy "cam" footage obtained from the security monitors outside the courtroom.

For obvious reasons, the press, partilcularly the gutter variety, are only interested in "compelling", clear, full-colour images, so grabs from the "cam" footage have hardly even been used.

The question this raises is; are there really people so attached to their "beliefs" that absolutely nothing will disabuse them? Are they really so pathologically self-deceiving? Or is it simply the case that they are ..... liars?

 

[TomCH]

Maresca has demonstrated that he is a shyster who is unprincipled even by the ignoble standards of his profession - the stunt he pulled last Saturday during AK's opening declaration, to give himself another opportunity to whore in front of the cameras beggars belief, and that is NOT hyperbole.

On the contrary, his leaving during her monologue is both admirable and laudable.

 

[shuttlt]

The media were not present in the courtroom during the trial proceedings, hence the ONLY publically available visual records are grainy "cam" footage obtained from the security monitors outside the courtroom.

For obvious reasons, the press, partilcularly the gutter variety, are only interested in "compelling", clear, full-colour images, so grabs from the "cam" footage have hardly even been used.

I thought they were in the courtroom for as much of the time as the trial was newsworthy enough to justify the coverage? Not that I'm defending any claim that she spent the trial flirting with people.

 

[shuttlt]

On the contrary, his leaving during her monologue is both admirable and laudable.

And in any case, there is some tough competition on this case for pulling stunts and whoring in front of the camera.

 

[Katody Matrass]

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=51

The English isn't great, but this looks to me like Mignini claiming that the 5:45am document was instigated by Amanda. He claims that she wasn't questioned. He received it from her. It was unsolicited.

Of course, it's only his word, but then again the same is true of Amanda's claim about what happened.

I think "voluntary statement" is an Italian legal term. Apparently it's a standard loophole to get around the requirements of proper interrogation.
The idea that Amanda would insist on giving a statement doesn't correspond with the contents of that statement. It's so short, vague and devoid of details that it's unbelievable that

1. she authored it at all, considering how wordy and detailed her other recollections of the events are.
2. it took them all night to get it out of her if it was really voluntary.​

Her "voluntary statement" is basically the same as what she signed at 1:45.
I'm guessing here, but I think it's quite possible they called Mignini to say "mission accomplished", and he advised them "it's all good, but we need to make it into a voluntary statement to make it really usable".

 

[Supernaut]

I thought they were in the courtroom for as much of the time as the trial was newsworthy enough to justify the coverage? Not that I'm defending any claim that she spent the trial flirting with people.

Ah, I forgot about the fondness you people have for pedantry.

There were no PRESS CAMERAS PRESENT (edit >> IN THE COURTROOM - gotta make sure I'm crystal for the sophists) during the proceedings.

Are we clear?

 

[Supernaut]

And in any case, there is some tough competition on this case for pulling stunts and whoring in front of the camera.

Maresca's purpose was to get in front of the cameras on his own. A stunt.

He's a pr*ck, and so is anyone who admires him.

Now, what "tough competition on this case for pulling stunts and whoring in front of the camera" are you referring to? Never mind the stock-in-trade innuendo - be specific.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

tsunami

By the sounds of it he's way out of Stefanoni's league?

Stefanoni may be an M.D., but I am not sure. A year ago someone argued that she had an international reputation because she traveled abroad to identify bodies after the big tsunami. That is not my idea of how one obtains an international reputation.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Raffaele's arrest

Dan,

The source is Monica Napoleoni. Apparently, that's what Napoleoni said in her testimony in court, where she also referred to her "police log" to confirm the chronology for events the night of November 5/6.

Barbie presents a detailed account........

____________________________________________
"As her officers were booking Raffaele, Napoleoni went out to the vending machine in the hallway, worried that Amanda might hear Raffaele protesting his arrest and decide to leave.

"Who on earth could have killed her?" Napoleoni asked Amanda, her arms crossed as she leaned against the vending machine.

Amanda said she didn't know---that she had wracked her brain and come up with nothing. The two went back to an interrogation room,...." (Angel Face, page 68)
_____________________________________________


Why do you question the truth of this account by Barbie?

///

Fine,

Ms. Napoleoni said that Raffaele was questioned from 10:40 to 3:35. She saw Amanda in the hallway around 11. There was no basis for arresting Raffaele in this time frame. The police went back to Raffaele's apartment to check his computer, etc. Also, Mignini would have to sign the arrest warrant. So Raffaele could not have gotten arrested in this time frame. It is worth remembering that this was a simultaneous interrogation, according to Dr. Giobbi.

 

[JREF2010]

Dan,

The source is Monica Napoleoni. Apparently, that's what Napoleoni said in her testimony in court, where she also referred to her "police log" to confirm the chronology for events the night of November 5/6.

Barbie presents a detailed account........

____________________________________________
"As her officers were booking Raffaele, Napoleoni went out to the vending machine in the hallway, worried that Amanda might hear Raffaele protesting his arrest and decide to leave.

"Who on earth could have killed her?" Napoleoni asked Amanda, her arms crossed as she leaned against the vending machine.

Amanda said she didn't know---that she had wracked her brain and come up with nothing. The two went back to an interrogation room,...." (Angel Face, page 68)
_____________________________________________


Why do you question the truth of this account by Barbie?

///

Who was Barbies source?
To have a detail such as leaning against a vending machine would be that there was someone else there at that specific event.

To hear those exact words as to be quoted is a police approved contact, as the only other non-police, would have been Amadna and Raffaele.

I wonder if the police leaks will ever be investigated, like the prison sex list leak. Someone very close to this case was leaking like a rusty pipe.

 

[Withnail1969]

Who was Barbies source?
To have a detail such as leaning against a vending machine would be that there was someone else there at that specific event.

To hear those exact words as to be quoted is a police approved contact, as the only other non-police, would have been Amadna and Raffaele.

I wonder if the police leaks will ever be investigated, like the prison sex list leak. Someone very close to this case was leaking like a rusty pipe.

Barbie's narrative reads like a teenage novel or an article from the lowest quality womens' magazines. Of course these events didn't actually happen in the way she describes them.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

house of cards

Charlie,

If it's been pointed out to you and Chris once, it's been pointed out a thousand times. It was realized in all of these cases that the original theory of the murder was wrong (or there was planted evidence or whatever), when it was proved that the original theory of the murder was wrong. When it is proved that Amanda and Raffaele can't have done it, just as in all those cases, it will be proved that an injustice has been done.

What do we do? Release everybody who might be the victim of a miscarriage of justice in case at some time in the future evidence comes along that proves it. All you are doing over and over is proving that miscarriages of justice happen. Nobody has ever disputed it. Why do you keep posting this?

Shuttlt,

I don’t disagree with the basic premise that proof of innocence has yet surfaced in this case, but I still think that your analysis is flawed. I posted on the Duke lacrosse case as a specific response to a question from another commenter, but I still think that the examples are relevant. First, they show that a seemingly strong case can really be a house of cards. Second, they show that the media can have a harmful effect on a case. Third and perhaps most importantly, these cases show that police and prosecutors often fight tooth-and-nail for a convictions that are clearly flawed. Being innocent is nice, but it is not enough to get one out of prison in a timely manner. Two of the Norfolk Four apparently had unimpeachable alibis, yet after twelve years all they have is a conditional pardon and sex-offender status.

No one is proposing doing anything close to releasing people who might be the victims of a miscarriage of justice (your question is unserious). However, you do not discuss another scenario, one that I think is quite likely. The evidence against Knox and Sollecito was not (IMHO) enough to get near reasonable doubt, yet they were convicted. That is an injustice, even if no proof of innocence is ever forthcoming.