Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[capealadin]

And, Platanov, has FINALLY apologized to Patrick. Because she did him wrong.

Unfortunately for her, patrick's not having any of it.

 

[shuttlt]

platonov,

The name hardly matters, does it? In asking about a text message that Amanda sent to Patrick, Amanda necessarily has Patrick's name suggested to her by the police (unless false memories, or general confusion get in the way of course ). Most of the talk on this has always seemed to me a silly game of trying to attribute first enunciating his name to either the police, or Amanda. Who really cares, and why?

A more important question is surely - did the police know who the text was to before they asked her about it?

Another question would be - irrespective of who the text was to, how firmly did they have it set in their minds that the text related to the murder and that the recipient of the text was the killer?

Personally I am quite prepared to believe that the police thought they were onto something with the text, that they had caught Amanda in a lie and that her reason for lying was connected with the murder. Neither does it surprise me that they wouldn't have been immediately prepared to drop that belief on being presented, assuming they were, with what they later discovered was the true explanation. None of that seems to me to be improper.

 

[katy_did]

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

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?

I'd assumed we were talking about legal procedures that had already happened (order for precautionary custody, order for trial, etc) since it's talked about in the past tense ("They used the statements I made at 1.45 am"). I admit I'm not 100% sure on that. However, if it was clearly understood that neither statement could be used against Amanda at all, and if there'd been no attempt by the prosecution to use them, then why was the issue taken to the Supreme Court? That seems odd to me.

ETA: In answer to your question, no, they can't use them as part of the investigation if they're used against the suspect, or in the case of the 5:45 statement, against anyone. That's how I understand it anyway.

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?

I think the prosecutor and police are very well aware of the importance of well-timed leaks to the press; from what Machiavelli has said, it almost seems an accepted part of the legal process (for the defence too, no doubt, but the prosecution get a big head-start, both because they're obviously in on the case from the beginning, and also because in the early stages the press are interested in finding the guilty parties, not in a possible wrongful conviction).

 

[shuttlt]

In answer to your question, no, they can't use them as part of the investigation if they're used against the suspect, or in the case of the 5:45 statement, against anyone.

So the police have to pretend not to have heard whatever is said? Some kind of Chinese Wall is assumed to exist around the interrogation room? I mean, if the witness-turned-suspect said "I spoke to person X on my way to the murder and told him all about what I was planning to do" in the interrogation, would the police be unable to speak to person X, unless they were able to come up with some unrelated reason for doing so?

 

[Katody Matrass]

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.

So, she saw an opportunity in the fact that the police were suspicious of her. She went with that opportunity by confessing and placing herself at the crime scene (although in a passive role). But didn't she pointed Guede's traces to the police earlier? If she was guilty she knew perfectly well Lumumba will get cleared soon and the only implication left would be that she lied, placed herself at the crime scene, and there's someone else who left lots of traces. So we must assume she lapsed into imbecility. Interestingly literature list mentally weak as a high risk group for coerced false confessions.
OTOH if she wasn't aware ILE was wrong about Lumumba, that changes the game substantially.

She could be innocent and stupid/foolish/used to lying her was out of trouble/whatever in this scenario as well of course.

Indeed, that's what we arrive at.

I struggle with the whole false-memory thing though.

Here's a short popular introduction for you, by an expert in the field of false confessions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDRRwFfJKkw

When did the session begin?

For Amanda it begin almost instantly after she arrived at the Questura. She didn't went home in the meantime to chill out or take a nap after all. I personally think the pressuring began days earlier, as soon as they got the phone logs and connected them with the reported "misbehaving" and the "possible black hair".

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.

If it was that obvious, the High Court's ruling wouldn't be necessary. And it turned out they were released to the press immediately, and then used in court anyway, isn't it?

Now I think the "spontaneous declaration" label is simply used by the prosecution as a disclaimer to cover their backs - "we were not interrogating without lawyer present, it was all spontaneous declaring, the suspect insisted!"
I think many people don't know their rights or are intimidated enough not to refuse talking. It's even easier for them to be spontaneous when the police forgets to record it .

 

[Justinian2]

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.

I concur. I don't understand this phenomenon at all. I've argued against a president before. The motivation for arguing against a president is that I thought his policies were costing me a job. I don't know what the motivation is for arguing against Amanda. People should want a good justice system.

Why do you think this happens?

 

[katy_did]

So the police have to pretend not to have heard whatever is said? Some kind of Chinese Wall is assumed to exist around the interrogation room? I mean, if the witness-turned-suspect said "I spoke to person X on my way to the murder and told him all about what I was planning to do" in the interrogation, would the police be unable to speak to person X, unless they were able to come up with some unrelated reason for doing so?

LOL. No, I think they can use it for the purposes of furthering the investigation (so in your example, obviously they could talk to person X) but not formally as evidence against the suspect. I suppose the idea is that the suspect has to be questioned properly with a lawyer and a recording if the statement's going to be used against them. I could be wrong, that's just what I understand to be the case.

 

[platonov]

platonov,

The name hardly matters, does it? In asking about a text message that Amanda sent to Patrick, Amanda necessarily has Patrick's name suggested to her by the police (unless false memories, or general confusion get in the way of course ). Most of the talk on this has always seemed to me a silly game of trying to attribute first enunciating his name to either the police, or Amanda. Who really cares, and why?

A more important question is surely - did the police know who the text was to before they asked her about it?

Another question would be - irrespective of who the text was to, how firmly did they have it set in their minds that the text related to the murder and that the recipient of the text was the killer?

Personally I am quite prepared to believe that the police thought they were onto something with the text, that they had caught Amanda in a lie and that her reason for lying was connected with the murder. Neither does it surprise me that they wouldn't have been immediately prepared to drop that belief on being presented, assuming they were, with what they later discovered was the true explanation. None of that seems to me to be improper.

shuttlt

It matters a great deal, not to you perhaps but to AK and her defence [and refutes a popoular trope which has run to many thousands of words on this thread, but that's of no consequence to the actual case obviously]

She admitted on the stand to 'lying' in her earlier story about the false accusation.
The judge even interjected and told her to be very 'careful' as this was an important issue.
The PM immediately highlighted the change in story.

It was not just a 'whatever' issue.

ETA Not to the court apparently - are we discussing the case or the thread

.

 

[katy_did]

Now I think the "spontaneous declaration" label is simply used by the prosecution as a disclaimer to cover their backs - "we were not interrogating without lawyer present, it was all spontaneous declaring, the suspect insisted!"
I think many people don't know their rights or are intimidated enough not to refuse talking. It's even easier for them to be spontaneous when the police forgets to record it .

I agree. I think she was asked to make further statements and probably given the appropriate spiel about the legal status of these declarations (i.e. that these declarations were voluntary in the sense that she could refuse to make them, but that by agreeing she was waiving certain defensive rights) but in such a way that refusing would have been difficult. As you say, for people who aren't aware of their rights (as Amanda clearly wasn't) it takes a great deal to refuse to talk to the police. Especially if you've just asked for a lawyer and been told that this would make things 'worse' for you.

 

[shuttlt]

So, she saw an opportunity in the fact that the police were suspicious of her. She went with that opportunity by confessing and placing herself at the crime scene (although in a passive role). But didn't she pointed Guede's traces to the police earlier? If she was guilty she knew perfectly well Lumumba will get cleared soon and the only implication left would be that she lied, placed herself at the crime scene, and there's someone else who left lots of traces. So we must assume she lapsed into imbecility. Interestingly literature list mentally weak as a high risk group for coerced false confessions.
OTOH if she wasn't aware ILE was wrong about Lumumba, that changes the game substantially.

For Amanda it begin almost instantly after she arrived at the Questura. She didn't went home in the meantime to chill out or take a nap after all. I personally think the pressuring began days earlier, as soon as they got the phone logs and connected them with the reported "misbehaving" and the "possible black hair".

You said: "She signed the "voluntary" statement at 5:45. What took them all night?" I thought you were implying that it couldn't be a genuinely voluntary statement because it took too long. Now you seem to be including everything that happened at the police station before that that night, and indeed the days before that. Could you clarify.

If it was that obvious, the High Court's ruling wouldn't be necessary.

I don't know enough about Italian Law either in theory or practice to say.

And it turned out they were released to the press immediately, and then used in court anyway, isn't it?

Sure, assuming the court allowed the evidence in.

Now I think the "spontaneous declaration" label is simply used by the prosecution as a disclaimer to cover their backs - "we were not interrogating without lawyer present, it was all spontaneous declaring, the suspect insisted!"

Perhaps. That is your belief, I haven't seen much proof.

I think many people don't know their rights or are intimidated enough not to refuse talking. It's even easier for them to be spontaneous when the police forgets to record it .

:shrug:

 

[shuttlt]

I agree. I think she was asked to make further statements and probably given the appropriate spiel about the legal status of these declarations (i.e. that these declarations were voluntary in the sense that she could refuse to make them, but that by agreeing she was waiving certain defensive rights) but in such a way that refusing would have been difficult. As you say, for people who aren't aware of their rights (as Amanda clearly wasn't) it takes a great deal to refuse to talk to the police. Especially if you've just asked for a lawyer and been told that this would make things 'worse' for you.

But all this is just your hunch, no?

 

[platonov]

And, Platanov, has FINALLY apologized to Patrick. Because she did him wrong.

Unfortunately for her, patrick's not having any of it.

But she is still blaming the cops*, but not in quite the same way she once was
- as my last post tries to show.

* She has to - she cant come clean now.

 

[christianahannah]

I agree. I think she was asked to make further statements and probably given the appropriate spiel about the legal status of these declarations (i.e. that these declarations were voluntary in the sense that she could refuse to make them, but that by agreeing she was waiving certain defensive rights) but in such a way that refusing would have been difficult. As you say, for people who aren't aware of their rights (as Amanda clearly wasn't) it takes a great deal to refuse to talk to the police. Especially if you've just asked for a lawyer and been told that this would make things 'worse' for you.

According to this ABC news article Amanda was asked if she wanted a lawyer and she said no. The person giving this testimony was Anna Donnino. Since I don't have trial transcripts I cannot vouch for the accuracy of this article.

The questioning stopped, and when Knox was asked if she wanted a lawyer, she said no, according to Donnino. Donnino repeatedly confirmed that Knox was never mistreated, and made her statements voluntarily.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=7077850&page=2

 

[shuttlt]

shuttlt

It matters a great deal, not to you perhaps but to AK and her defence [and refutes a popoular trope which has run to many thousands of words on this thread, but that's of no consequence to the actual case obviously]

She admitted on the stand to 'lying' in her earlier story about the false accusation.
The judge even interjected and told her to be very 'careful' as this was an important issue.
The PM immediately highlighted the change in story.

It was not just a 'whatever' issue.

ETA Not to the court apparently - are we discussing the case or the thread

.

I don't know what the scope of this discussion is, I guess you started it, so you should decide.

It may be important in proving some kind of change in the detail of her story. Frankly I'm tired of arguing about in what sense what she says may acceptably be interpreted.

 

[RoseMontague]

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'

You claimed your own statement as a source on this and you are complaining that halides doesn't give us a link? From what I have seen and provided she is referred to as a police interpreter and/or police officer. If you have seen something that indicates she is not employed by the police, that is fine, provide it and I will take that into account, but I have not seen anything indicating that she might just be a consultant or self-employed contractor type interpreter. BTW, I take "AD" above to stand for Anna Donnino so I don't believe he is confusing her with another interpreter.

 

[RoseMontague]

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.

I recall Frank had a very similar scenario as that reported by Dempsey.

Did not LJ provide a link showing that a prosecutor could appeal in a fast track trial?

 

[katy_did]

But all this is just your hunch, no?

That people can find it difficult to refuse to talk to the police, you mean? Obviously some parts of what I wrote were based on Amanda's statements. If you mean that it's my 'hunch' that Amanda might have preferred to have a lawyer during the second statement, and that she would probably rather not have spoken to the police a second time at all, then I suppose yes, it's just a hunch.

 

[katy_did]

According to this ABC news article Amanda was asked if she wanted a lawyer and she said no. The person giving this testimony was Anna Donnino. Since I don't have trial transcripts I cannot vouch for the accuracy of this article.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=7077850&page=2

This is what Amanda said about it during her testimony:

AK: So, before they asked me to make further declarations--I really can't tell you what time it was, I was lost after hours and hours of the same thing--but at one point I asked if I shouldn't have a lawyer? I thought that, well, I didn't know, but I've seen things like this on television. When people do things like this they have lawyer. They told me, at least one of them told me that it would be worse for me because it would prove that I didn't want to collaborate with the police. So they told me no.

Perhaps she did say no, after she was told it would make things worse for her. Raffaele also says he asked for a lawyer but was refused, of course. And really, who wouldn't ask for a lawyer in that situation?

 

[RWVBWL]

Amanda' speech

Greetings all from warm, sunny Southern California!

On Saturday, Dec. 11, 2010,
Amanda Knox gave a 14 minute speech in Italian while appearing in court.

I wish to read a full translation of this speech.
Or see a YouTube video with English subtiled at the bottom.

Does anyone know if that has been done yet?
If so, can you post a link to it?
Thank you,
RWVBWL

 

[Katody Matrass]

You said: "She signed the "voluntary" statement at 5:45. What took them all night?" I thought you were implying that it couldn't be a genuinely voluntary statement because it took too long. Now you seem to be including everything that happened at the police station before that that night, and indeed the days before that. Could you clarify.

Basically I cannot see any explanation for Amanda insisting on making another statement at 5:45 in the morning. Especially when there is virtually nothing more in it then in the paper she signed at 1:45. But I can't see anything wrong in the idea that they called Mignini to Questura and tried all night to make Amanda substantiate her story and implicate Lumumba more clearly.
If you compare the statements of 1:45 and 5:45 it is quite eminent they tried to put some details into the story but failed. That's also how Amanda describe the course of the interrogation:

Then, following this, they wanted details, they wanted
to know everything I had done. But I didn't know how to say. So they started
talking to me, saying, "Okay, so you went out of the house, okay, fine, so
you met Patrick, where did you meet Patrick?" I don't know, maybe in Piazza
Grimana, maybe near it. Because I had this image of Piazza Grimana. "Okay,
fine, so you went with him to your house. Okay, fine. How did you open the
door?" Well, with my key. "So you opened the house". Okay, yes. "And what
did you do then?" I don't know. "But was she already there?" I don't know.
"Did she arrive or was she already there?" Okay. "Who was there with you?"
I don't know. "Was it just Patrick, or was Raffaele there too?" I don't know.
It was the same when the pubblico ministero came, because he asked me: "Excuse me, I don't understand. Did you hear the sound of a scream?" No. "But how could you not have heard the scream?". I don't know, maybe my
ears were covered. I kept on and on saying I don't know, maybe, imagining...​

Didn't "the scream" show up only in the 5:45 statement, after Mignini arrived?