Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Dan O.]

So what does Amanda's smile mean? It has to be understood in the context of the legal system.

I think it means she is happy to get out of the prison for even one day that she has been locked in for a year before even being charged.

Now it's been over three years. How do you correct the damage that such misapplication of the legal system causes?


A large part of the ongoing online battle over this case is between those that think Amanda and Raffaele are innocent and those that think they are guilty. But the real battle is between the might of the prosecution backed by the resources of the state against individuals and the resources of their family and friends. Though I do currently believe the two are innocent, my fight is in the larger battle to see that the state has to prove guilt before they impose punishment on individuals. So far as I see it, the state of Italy through the prosecution and the court have failed to meet the burden of proof.

What I find unbelievable is the number of people That have apparently taken the other side in this larger battle and actively spread lies to undermine support for the family.

 

[Katody Matrass]

It's hard to say for sure given the back and forth imperfact translations. I had thought "spontaneous declaration" was the transalation of what ever the Italian legal phrase is. STill this could be a legal term as well.

I suspect the original could be "la dichiarazione spontanea".

Anyway, I also question whether what happened is "a standard loophole to get around the requirements of proper interrogation".


If she is making things up as she goes, might that not be what one expects?

And do you have a theory? What happened that night and why did Amanda implicate Lumumba? How does it correspond to Guede's traces she pointed to the police earlier?

What timings are you basing this on?

She signed the "voluntary" statement at 5:45. What took them all night?

Usable for what? If this really is a standard ploy then presumably somebody has loads of other cases where the ploy has worked?

I think e.g. Michele Misseri (the ongoing Sabrina case) made a "spontaneous declaration" during a few hours long interrogation. He implicated himself and pointed at his daughter as a killer. The idea is that they can interrogate without a lawyer as long as what they got is "spontaneous". Then it can be used against the accused, even if the Supreme Court rules otherwise.

 

[shuttlt]

By the way, on the topic of Amanda laughing. There is audio of course. I'm not able to listen to it at the moment, but the transcript makes it look as though she laughed intermittently in response to the questions throughout giving evidence.

 

[capealadin]

I wouldn't trust Barbie Nadeau any further than I could throw her.

Can't quite decipher the rest of your post.

Right. Understood. Better to trust the food blogger, who was in Court just a couple of times. Strange that.

 

[Supernaut]

Right. Understood. Better to trust the food blogger, who was in Court just a couple of times. Strange that.

Put it this way - Candace Dempsey, Frank Sfarzo - ANYONE but Barbara "I spent hours getting cosy with Giuliano Mignini to get good copy" Nadeau.

 

[Justinian2]

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?

Yes.

The reason why "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" is a subject by itself.

I believe that the school systems put too much emphasis on parroting what the teacher said rather than in establishing a thinking pattern that verifies fact while devaluing the parrot factor.

I have also observed that people obsessively cling to their beliefs even when obviously wrong.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

sunlight is the best disinfectant

shuttlt,

The number of cases in which innocence is ultimately proved is itself a small subset of the total number of cases in any justice system. Here is my friendly challenge with reference to these cases. In how many cases in which actual innocence is shown did the prosecution join he defense in a motion to dismiss? In how many cases did they fight? There are also some good lessons about citizen involvement in these cases, but that is a topic for another day.

 

[capealadin]

Put it this way - Candace Dempsey, Frank Sfarzo - ANYONE but Barbara "I spent hours getting cosy with Giuliano Mignini to get good copy" Nadeau.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course. I will take Barbie's take on it, as she was there everyday, and speaks fluent Italian. She didn't need Mignini to be her eyes and ears to follow what was going on, in front of her, in the Courtroom.

In any event, Amanda's demeanour in Court is not the reason she was found guilty.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

unreferenced assertions

Right. Understood. Better to trust the food blogger, who was in Court just a couple of times. Strange that.

capealadin,

False. Candace Dempsey was in court far more than twice. She covered the Supreme Court date, but Barbie did not. I would suggest you have a look at Ms. Dempsey's resume before repeating silly taunts you learned elsewhere.

Ms. Nadeau has made a number of errors, and Malkmus was the most recent commenter to point some of them out. I am surprised that you would bring up issues of credibility, what with your confident but unreferenced assertions about fast track trials rebutted in several ways.

 

[shuttlt]

I suspect the original could be "la dichiarazione spontanea".

I'll go with that.

And do you have a theory? What happened that night and why did Amanda implicate Lumumba? How does it correspond to Guede's traces she pointed to the police earlier?

One that I'm convinced of? No. I don't see how it can't be accounted for by being unprepared for the questions the police were asking, and the information that they claimed to have and going with the opportunity that the police being suspicious of the SMS provided without realizing what a mess it was opening up for her. She could be innocent and stupid/foolish/used to lying her was out of trouble/whatever in this scenario as well of course. I struggle with the whole false-memory thing though.

She signed the "voluntary" statement at 5:45. What took them all night?

When did the session begin? Surely you are assuming it was long because you think it wasn't voluntary, and then using that length to argue it wasn't voluntary? Or has a start time come out of the woodwork? It still couldn't possibly be more than 4 hours, and that doesn't seem very likely.

I think e.g. Michele Misseri (the ongoing Sabrina case) made a "spontaneous declaration" during a few hours long interrogation. He implicated himself and pointed at his daughter as a killer. The idea is that they can interrogate without a lawyer as long as what they got is "spontaneous". Then it can be used against the accused, even if the Supreme Court rules otherwise.

That's not what I had understood to be the case about spontaneous declarations.

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).

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2008/04/amanda-q-and-with-supreme-court.html

If I'm reading that correctly, by arresting her at 1:45am, she was a suspect and the "spontaneous statements" could necessarily not be used from the 5:45am statement.

 

[shuttlt]

shuttlt,

The number of cases in which innocence is ultimately proved is itself a small subset of the total number of cases in any justice system. Here is my friendly challenge with reference to these cases. In how many cases in which actual innocence is shown did the prosecution join he defense in a motion to dismiss? In how many cases did they fight? There are also some good lessons about citizen involvement in these cases, but that is a topic for another day.

Those question strike me as ones that will lead to pro-innocence confirmation bias. The real question should be, in how many cases did the prosecution fight, and of them, how many did it turn out that the defendant was innocent. The fact that the prosecution are fighting tells you almost nothing. Surely the prosecution always [perhaps there are some exceedingly rare exceptions] fight unless the case is bound to collapse anyway?

Is citizens involvement even a particularly good indicator of guilt/innocence? I've seen posts, and heard/read comment that Rubin Carter may not have been as innocent as his supporters supposed. Isn't it as much to do with how personally appealing the person is, how committed their family and friends are, and what resources they can draw on? I suppose to a degree the commitment of their core supports isn't wholly independent of the evidence against them, and therefore not wholly independent of the guilt or innocence. Still, the fact that there is support for her in some quarters isn't necessarily a very good indicator of innocence, is it?

 

[katy_did]

I suspect the original could be "la dichiarazione spontanea".

Exactly, yes. Mignini's using the legal term, the same one that's been translated as 'voluntary' and spontaneous' on other occasions. So 'unsolicited' is just the word the translator chose to use (that's what I was trying to point out to Fulcanelli when he said 'voluntary' and 'unsolicited' are used by ILE interchangeably - they aren't, it's just that the same legal term was translated differently).

 

[shuttlt]

In any event, Amanda's demeanour in Court is not the reason she was found guilty.

To convict, the jury have to look at the defendant and think "I can believe that that person could do what they're accused of". I wouldn't discount demeanor in enabling the jury to reach that conclusion.

 

[platonov]

Originally Posted by halides1

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?

Rose Montague

Are you moving the goalposts here
I don't see how this helps your argument w.r.t Dempsey's claim that AD is a police officer (cop) as opposed to an interpreter.
Nor do I even see a source here, I see an un-sourced post from halides1.

halides1
Not that it makes much difference but are you sure about this un-sourced 'text' ?
Are you perhaps confusing 2 different interpreter's.

To sum up ; It appears we have gone from - 'no interpreter', one of the early talking points to
- 'OK OK, there was an interpreter, but lets call her a cop'

 

[capealadin]

capealadin,

False. Candace Dempsey was in court far more than twice. She covered the Supreme Court date, but Barbie did not. I would suggest you have a look at Ms. Dempsey's resume before repeating silly taunts you learned elsewhere.

Ms. Nadeau has made a number of errors, and Malkmus was the most recent commenter to point some of them out. I am surprised that you would bring up issues of credibility, what with your confident but unreferenced assertions about fast track trials rebutted in several ways.

She covered the Supreme Court Date? Barbie was there every day, but two. Let me know exactly how many days, Ms. Dempsey attended. In toto.

How's Ms. Dempsey's *parade* statement coming along, factually? And, prove me wrong re: The prosecutor may not appeal a fast track trial verdict.

Thank you.

 

[katy_did]

If I'm reading that correctly, by arresting her at 1:45am, she was a suspect and the "spontaneous statements" could necessarily not be used from the 5:45am statement.

However, it sounds as if the reason the Supreme Court had to rule on this is that they were used against her:

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 would think that if both statements had only been used as they were supposed to be used (the first against other people but not against Amanda; the second not against anyone) there would have been no need for Amanda to take the issue to the Supreme Court in the first place. Perhaps the police/prosecutor were banking on being able to use the statements in the short-term, even if they were aware they'd most likely be ruled inadmissible in the end. By that time they'd already been released to the press, of course.

 

[christianahannah]

I'll go with that.


One that I'm convinced of? No. I don't see how it can't be accounted for by being unprepared for the questions the police were asking, and the information that they claimed to have and going with the opportunity that the police being suspicious of the SMS provided without realizing what a mess it was opening up for her. She could be innocent and stupid/foolish/used to lying her was out of trouble/whatever in this scenario as well of course. I struggle with the whole false-memory thing though.


When did the session begin? Surely you are assuming it was long because you think it wasn't voluntary, and then using that length to argue it wasn't voluntary? Or has a start time come out of the woodwork? It still couldn't possibly be more than 4 hours, and that doesn't seem very likely.



That's not what I had understood to be the case about spontaneous declarations.


http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2008/04/amanda-q-and-with-supreme-court.html

If I'm reading that correctly, by arresting her at 1:45am, she was a suspect and the "spontaneous statements" could necessarily not be used from the 5:45am statement.

I believe the only reason the 5:45 a.m. statement was allowed during Amanda's testimony is because of the slander trial of Patrick which was occurring at the same time. Massei does not mention the 1:45 a.m. or the 5:45 a.m. statement in the motivations.

Here is Article 63 cpp (in both Italian and Google Translate):

Art. 63 Dichiarazioni indizianti
1. Se davanti all'autorità giudiziaria o alla polizia giudiziaria una persona non imputata (60) ovvero una persona non sottoposta alle indagini (61) rende dichiarazioni dalle quali emergono indizi di reità a suo carico, l'autorità procedente ne interrompe l'esame, avvertendola che a seguito di tali dichiarazioni potranno essere svolte indagini nei suoi confronti e la invita a nominare un difensore (96). Le precedenti dichiarazioni non possono essere utilizzate contro la persona che le ha rese (191). 2. Se la persona doveva essere sentita sin dall'inizio in qualità di imputato o di persona sottoposta alle indagini, le sue dichiarazioni non possono essere utilizzate (191).

Article 63 Declarations indizianti
1. If before the judicial authority to the police or a person not charged (60) or a person under investigation (61) makes statements which emerge from the evidence of guilt against him, the authority concerned will stop the examination, warning as a result of such statements may be investigated against her and invites her to appoint a defender (96). The previous statements can not be used against the person who made them (191). 2. If the person had to be heard from the beginning as a defendant or person under investigation, his statements can not be used (191).

http://www.leggeonline.info/procedurapenale/titoloIV_1.php

http://translate.google.com/transla...ggeonline.info/procedurapenale/titoloIV_1.php

The 5:45 a.m. statement is a bit different from the 1:45 a.m. statement in that there is more detail and Amanda doesn't exclude Raffaele from being at the cottage. She was either questioned for more detail, it was added by the police from statements given during her first interrogation, or she gave the details herself (there may be more possibilities than these three).

From reading the Codice Procedura Penale (Title IV - The accused) I am not sure that even if there was a video of the interrogation that it could be included by the prosecution against Amanda since the 1:45 a.m. and 5:45 a.m. statements cannot be used against her. It is difficult for me to understand the legalese presented in the two links above and it has nothing to do with Italian and everything to do with the language of law.

 

[shuttlt]

However, it sounds as if the reason the Supreme Court had to rule on this is that they were used against her:

Used for what? I assumed we were talking about admissibility in court. They can presumably use them as part of the investigation, no?

I would think that if both statements had only been used as they were supposed to be used (the first against other people but not against Amanda; the second not against anyone) there would have been no need for Amanda to take the issue to the Supreme Court in the first place.

But surely the Supreme Court thing happened as they were moving towards the phase of the case [i.e. the trial] where the statements might be used in the sense that the Supreme Court ruling applies to?

Perhaps the police/prosecutor were banking on being able to use the statements in the short-term, even if they were aware they'd most likely be ruled inadmissible in the end. By that time they'd already been released to the press, of course.

But, this is something else? We surely aren't claiming that in Italy the police routinely get up to all these tricks simply in order to be able to leak a few things to the press?

 

[shuttlt]

I believe the only reason the 5:45 a.m. statement was allowed during Amanda's testimony is because of the slander trial of Patrick which was occurring at the same time. Massei does not mention the 1:45 a.m. or the 5:45 a.m. statement in the motivations.

This is my understanding.

Here is Article 63 cpp (in both Italian and Google Translate):

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that link.

From reading the Codice Procedura Penale I am not sure that even if there was a video of the interrogation that it could be included by the prosecution against Amanda since the 1:45 a.m. and 5:45 a.m. statements cannot be used against her. It is difficult for me to understand the legalese presented in the two links above and it has nothing to do with Italian and everything to do with the language of law.

I haven't seen anybody arguing that it could be. The hope/belief is that it would help the defense by demonstrating what went on to cause Amanda's false memories.

 

[platonov]

Lets try to get away from incidental issues and baseless speculation about one legged interpreters, missing videos, claims about the 5.45 'spontaneous declarations' that the defence lawyers never even made in court etc etc.

Getting back get back to basics ........(and this will have an effect in the appeal as it did in the trial)

Much of the Foaker argument here revolves around the 'conspiracy theory' that the cops or Mignini or whoever.........
Had PL in their sights and tortured or beat or finally 'cuffed' AK into agreeing he was involved after they first brought his name up.
Indeed in one the earlier [Dec 17 2007] 'judicial appearances' this was AK's own claim.

Now its my contention that not alone is this false [many of these arguments are ridiculous in the extreme] but that AK herself admitted this while on the stand.
You don't need to accept rational arguments - they have failed in any (and every ?) case - We have AK's own admission that this was what happened.

AK admitted on the stand that she was the one who brought up PL's name and by (very direct) implication that her earlier Dec 17 answers and her whole 'story' on this issue were in fact lies.

I can explain this better if there are any objections.

.