Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Machiavelli]

Thank you.

Here is the last paragraph of this http://www.rtl.de/medien/informati...ca-22/amanda-knox-fakten-hinter-dem-fall.html German article:

Angesichts so vieler neuer Umstände ist die Verteidigung guter Hoffnung, dass sie bei den Berufsrichtern und Schöffen des Appellationsgerichtes von Perugia den berühmten "berechtigten Zweifel“ an der Schuld Amandas und Raffaeles wecken kann. Doch das Risiko für die beiden jungen Leute ist groß. Rudy Guede hat den Deal mit der Staatsanwaltschaft gemacht und kann in mutmaßlich fünf bis acht Jahren als freier Mann das Gefängnis wieder verlassen. Amanda und Raffaele aber gehen das Risiko ein, für die nächsten 20 Jahre hinter Gittern sitzen zu müssen.

Google translates the last line as Rudy Guede has the deal made with prosecutors and is suspected in five to eight years to leave the prison a free man again. Amanda and Raffaele, but run the risk of having to sit for the next 20 years behind bars.

It’s hard to believe he can commit murder and get out of jail so soon. Is this implying he will get this deal if he speaks the prosecutions version of events, or is it no strings attached?

There is nothing the prosecutor can give him now once his sentence is confirmed. There is nothing to make deals about with the prosecution. The various prosecution offices have lost all their power on Rudy now.

 

[shuttlt]

Er, it did what?

To rephrase. The alternative perspective that I offered on how the police viewed Amanda's 1:45am statement was that they strongly suspected she was attempting to deliberately mislead them in some respect. In particular they may well have doubted that, had she been present for the murder, she would only vaguely have recalled it. I suspect all the things that stand out to us as implausible, stood out to them.

Given that they almost certainly overestimated what they had on her at that point (Raffaele's interrogation and the SMS) they may have been pretty confident that she was indeed there. In which case, she is lying about "only vaguely recalling" the killing, presumably in order to avoid telling them various details that she would prefer they remain unaware of.

 

[Machiavelli]

Thank you Machiavelli. I had been trying to find the appeal information but was looking under Libro 9: Impugnazioni Titolo II: Appello.


Is the information here the current article (it appears paragraph 2 is missing or they forgot to numeral it)?

The articla 443 is in title I, the specific title regarding abreviated trail. It is an article oly referred to abbreviated trials.

The paragraph 2 was in fact cancelled. This is a final result after a number of modifications have been annulled by counter-rulings by the Supreme Constitutional Legitimacy Court.

Paragraph 1 of 443 has been a point of war between the government and the judiciary, hence the attempts of modification and delcarations of unconstitutionality of the same modification.

 

[shuttlt]

There is nothing the prosecutor can give him now once his sentence is confirmed. There is nothing to make deals about with the prosecution. The various prosecution offices have lost all their power on Rudy now.

Presumably admitting to being the sole killer isn't particularly attractive right now. For one thing the possibility that he could make some statement to resolve the case one way or the other makes him significant and important. Once he's done that, who cares about Rudy Guede?

Maybe the possibility of parole will change his perspective?

 

[Withnail1969]

This is 100 meters! It is not from the road. This balcony is in the datrk. What do you think people would notice of a human shiouette being on the balcony? Compare this to Filomena's window. The widow in FIlomena's room us under tha nose of anyone pasing by the road. Imagine you notice somebody clinging outside a window. It is not like somebody on the balcony.
And chestnut trees still have full foliage on Nov. 2 in Perugia.

The balcony is illuminated by a nearby streetlight and the trees on that side of the house are bare.

 

[Mary_H]

Why should it have been possible to use both statements against her if The Machine is correct?

I believe what The Machine et al have wanted to argue is that the first statement would have been admissible because Amanda was technically a witness and not a suspect when she signed it. The second statement would have been admissible because Amanda simply wanted to offer it spontaneously of her own free will, as if she didn't care whether or not she had a lawyer when she made it.

Under Italian law, though, she cannot waive her right to a lawyer once she has been made a suspect.

 

[Supernaut]

LOL, you got it wrong
Scene one:

What's that guy doing on that balcony?
after some 30m :
He just pried the shutters open!
after another 30m:
and now he's kicking in the glass door!
another 30m:
Let's park behind those bare trees to get a better view. He's really nervy to do it in full view and in the light of that streetlight.​

Scene two:

It's November but this large tree is still beautiful and green, isn't it?​

quadraginta, you've been caught red handed cherry picking the photos to suit your position, how do you feel about it ?.

Which of these would have been of most concern to Guede?

- being spotted on the street-lamp illuminated balcony of the darkened cottage by a local resident who would quite possibly later hear that the place had been burgled the same night

- being glimpsed momentarily by a driver or occupant of a passing car, who in all likelihood would never even hear about the break-in.

I don't think anything more needs to be added to this discsussion, frankly.

 

[shuttlt]

I believe what The Machine et al have wanted to argue is that the first statement would have been admissible because Amanda was technically a witness and not a suspect when she signed it.

I thought you were saying that the Machine was arguing that she was a witness before 1:45am and became a suspect at that point.

You said:

Why he wants to maintain this, I don't know. If it were true, the Supreme Court would not have thrown out the two statements.

From which I took you to be claiming that, were she a witness prior to 1:45am, then the 1:45am statement would have been admissable. Now I think you are attributing the interpretation that if the 1:45am statement was made as a witness then it should be admissable, to The Machine. Are you claiming that the incriminating statements of a witness are, or are not admissable against them?

The second statement would have been admissible because Amanda simply wanted to offer it spontaneously of her own free will, as if she didn't care whether or not she had a lawyer when she made it.

Again, I had thought you were arguing that if The Machine's claims about the circumstances of the 5:45am statement were true then it would have been admissable. This is not the case?

Under Italian law, though, she cannot waive her right to a lawyer once she has been made a suspect.

It certainly seems to be broadly the case that for a suspects statements need to be in front of a lawyer representing them to be admissable.

Perhaps I misunderstood your post?

 

[Mary_H]

Dos your argument consist in pointing at the word "spontaneously"?
I make a few points:

1. you say "If it were true, the Supreme Court would not have thrown out the two statements". This makes no sense. First, there is no logical relation between a ruling of the Supreme Court and the length of the interrogation. A ruling by the Supreme Court doesn't mean the reported timing reported in munutes is untrue, in fact this was not disputed. Second, "the Supreme Court thrown out the statements" is a commonly reported incorrect phrase. It is an incorrect interpretation of the ruling. The Court said said the statements were not usable in certain purposes under certain conditions in the court debate. But did not throw out the statements: the statements were allowed to remain included in the process file.

I don't think I said anything about the length of an interrogation, so I'm not getting your point here.

2. The words "spontanouously" is a formula. Minutes of spontaneous declaration always would start with this formulation. It is a compulsory technical wording, not a style chosen by the suspect.

Would you happen to know what the point of that "compulsory technical wording might be?" Would you also happen to know why, if it is compulsory, it did not appear in the first statement?

3. What she was doing between 1:45 and 5:45 is no big question, as long as she gave us no big answer different from anything we know. We know the long waiting times at police station, we know 5:45 time is the signing aftr the closure of her conversation with Mignini, we know that there has been a call to Mignini who was at home in between, and that there has been a notification of a state of police arrest, then a warrant issued by Mignini who was instructed about the recent interrogations of Sollecito and Knox, read the papers and declared her a formal suspect, and his explaning her the warrant and his demand about whehter she wanted to make statements, so we know a few things did happen that took some time before the beginning of her statement.

Ah, a "demand," not another interrogation. Interestingly, one of the things that appears to have happened in addition to the procedural steps you mention above is the discussion about the scream. The scream appears only in the second statement, not the first, and Amanda has testified about when she got the idea about the scream -- during an interrogation with the PM.

Incidentally, what warrant are you referring to? Amanda signed her arrest warrant at midday, not at 5 in the morning.

4. the "trial testimony in which at least three lawyers refer to the "5:45 interrogation" means nothing, lawyers don't testify, and means nothing as long as the 5:45 is always acknowledged to be a spontaneous stetement by all lawyers and judges in all documents. It is not like we can decide that different wordings during the trial can overturn the legal definition and position about this point.

You haven't shown that the 5:45 statement is acknowledged to be spontaneous in any documents. If you don't want to call it the result of an illegal interrogation with Mignini, then please explain why the "The Court said said the statements were not usable in certain purposes under certain conditions in the court debate."

5. finally, a general point about the colpevolisti. What instead innocentisti seem they fail to grasp, is the main incriminating value against Amanda Knox - mhat makse of her a liar - comes from her subsequent hand written memoriale, and from her previous e-mail (and interogations). And in general, it is what she said before and after that makes her position totally inconsistent, rather than during the 05:45 statement. In her 05:45 statement there are many elements from which we can see reasons to think the version of the police is simply the truth and tha she is just a suspect trying to make up a story to mislead investigations. But how she deals after with the facts )and what she said before) makes of her a proven liar.

I see nothing in what she has written that makes of her a liar, proven or otherwise, and I have yet to see you or any other colpevolisto provide a demonstration. Care to give it a try?

 

[shuttlt]

You haven't shown that the 5:45 statement is acknowledged to be spontaneous in any documents. If you don't want to call it the result of an illegal interrogation with Mignini, then please explain why the "The Court said said the statements were not usable in certain purposes under certain conditions in the court debate."

Wouldn't the court have ruled the same had the statements resulted from Amanda hypothetically begging Mignini to take dictation which, after much protest, he does? She was a suspect. No lawyer was present. Not admissable.

 

[Supernaut]

Which of these would have been of most concern to Guede?

- being spotted on the street-lamp illuminated balcony of the darkened cottage by a local resident who would quite possibly later hear that the place had been burgled the same night

- being glimpsed momentarily by a driver or occupant of a passing car, who in all likelihood would never even hear about the break-in.

I don't think anything more needs to be added to this discsussion, frankly.

Which will be wishful thinking of course, so I'll add;

The side of the cottage which Guede chose to gain entry is not directly iluminated by the headlights of passing traffic. Even if a vehicle had appeared as he was scaling the wall, all Guede would have needed to was keep still until it passed and the chances of the occupants spotting him in the dark would be close to zero.

Anyway, once he had prepared the way by breaking the window, Guede would have accomplished the climb to window and been inside the flat in a matter of seconds (say, 10 or 15), having first listened for approaching traffic before choosing his moment.

 

[Mary_H]

I thought you were saying that the Machine was arguing that she was a witness before 1:45am and became a suspect at that point.

From which I took you to be claiming that, were she a witness prior to 1:45am, then the 1:45am statement would have been admissable. Now I think you are attributing the interpretation that if the 1:45am statement was made as a witness then it should be admissable, to The Machine. Are you claiming that the incriminating statements of a witness are, or are not admissable against them?

I don't know the answer to that question. It seems to me the proper procedure would have been for the police, after an investigation and questioning, to decide the witness is worth being called a suspect. At that point, they would read the suspect her rights, obtain a lawyer for her, then begin an interrogation and then have her sign a written statement in the presence of her lawyer. I don't see how it can be customary to require a witness to sign a confession to the crime, and then make her a suspect.

Again, I had thought you were arguing that if The Machine's claims about the circumstances of the 5:45am statement were true then it would have been admissable. This is not the case?

Again, I don't know the answer to that question. There seems to be a big deal being made of the word spontaneous, as if Mignini wanted to claim that his hands were tied if the suspect went ahead and made a statement without being asked, and the colpevolisti seem to want to agree with that claim. Perhaps one of the colpevolisti will describe the point of their argument in more detail. My intention is to make sure the facts are clear.

It certainly seems to be broadly the case that for a suspects statements need to be in front of a lawyer representing them to be admissable.

I agree. I can't see any other reason so far that the Supreme Court would rule the statements to be inadmissible for the murder trial.

 

[Mary_H]

Wouldn't the court have ruled the same had the statements resulted from Amanda hypothetically begging Mignini to take dictation which, after much protest, he does? She was a suspect. No lawyer was present. Not admissable.

I agree. That is why I say he should not have accepted it from her.

 

[Justinian2]

The bra clasp LCN DNA is falling down,
Falling down, Falling down.
The knife LCN DNA is falling down,
My fair lady.

Take a key and lock her up,
Lock her up, Lock her up.

Take a key and lock her up,
My fair lady.

How will we build it up,
Build it up, Build it up?

How will we build it up,
My fair lady?

Build it up with silver and gold,
Silver and gold, Silver and gold.

Build it up with silver and gold,
My fair lady.

 

[shuttlt]

I don't know the answer to that question. It seems to me the proper procedure would have been for the police, after an investigation and questioning, to decide the witness is worth being called a suspect.

This far at least, it seems to be what happened. There was an investigation. She was questioned. I've seen it claimed that given a certain amount of evidence the police are obliged to make you a suspect, but in any case...

At that point, they would read the suspect her rights, obtain a lawyer for her, then begin an interrogation and then have her sign a written statement in the presence of her lawyer. I don't see how it can be customary to require a witness to sign a confession to the crime, and then make her a suspect.

I guess in theory at least Knox could have refused to sign. But in any case, since she is a witness at the time of making the 1:45am statement and the document can't be used in evidence against her (as per the endless discussion on this) I don't see what the problem is. Essentially the document becomes procedural indicating why she has become a suspect, no?

Again, I don't know the answer to that question. There seems to be a big deal being made of the word spontaneous, as if Mignini wanted to claim that his hands were tied if the suspect went ahead and made a statement without being asked, and the colpevolisti seem to want to agree with that claim. Perhaps one of the colpevolisti will describe the point of their argument in more detail. My intention is to make sure the facts are clear.

I had been under the impression that we were in agreement that "spontaneous" in the sense used by Mignini and the court is a legal term with a precisely defined meaning that isn't wholely the same as it's day to day meaning. My impression is that "spontaneous" in the legal sense covers a lot of the same ground as "after being made a suspect, but without a lawyer" covers. In that case, I don't see a problem.

 

[shuttlt]

I agree. That is why I say he should not have accepted it from her.

Saying that it is inadmissable is surely not equivalent to saying he should not have taken down the statement (or what ever it was). What legally is a "spontaneous declaration" then? Can a suspect make a spontaneous declaration, or must the police and prosecutor stop up their ears and cover their eyes to everything that involves the suspect other than in the presence of their lawyer?

 

[shuttlt]

The bra clasp LCN DNA is falling down,
Falling down, Falling down.
The knife LCN DNA is falling down,
My fair lady.

Take a key and lock her up,
Lock her up, Lock her up.

Didn't they lock her up first? Also, the first line doesn't scan.

 

[Mary_H]

This far at least, it seems to be what happened. There was an investigation. She was questioned. I've seen it claimed that given a certain amount of evidence the police are obliged to make you a suspect, but in any case...

I guess in theory at least Knox could have refused to sign. But in any case, since she is a witness at the time of making the 1:45am statement and the document can't be used in evidence against her (as per the endless discussion on this) I don't see what the problem is. Essentially the document becomes procedural indicating why she has become a suspect, no?

I had been under the impression that we were in agreement that "spontaneous" in the sense used by Mignini and the court is a legal term with a precisely defined meaning that isn't wholely the same as it's day to day meaning. My impression is that "spontaneous" in the legal sense covers a lot of the same ground as "after being made a suspect, but without a lawyer" covers. In that case, I don't see a problem.

I suppose you could say that neither of these documents was problematical as long as no one ever saw them (although I can think of some arguments against that as an actual, not a theoretical, position). However, the statements were published in the media; they were used in the slander trial, which was held simultaneously with the criminal trial; and Amanda was questioned about them in the criminal trial. Hence, the Supreme Court's ruling of them as inadmissible, which was intended to protect Amanda's rights, did not turn out to be very helpful, given the way the rest of the system is set up.

I am not yet in agreement with any understanding of the word "spontaneous" other than the usual one. If you want to apply it to "after being made a suspect, but without a lawyer," then that is an unusual meaning to me, and requires a more complete definition. It seems to me that if a suspect is without a lawyer, anything they say should be considered the opposite of spontaneous, because they are without the normal protections a free person enjoys.

 

[shuttlt]

How about this.....

There's a hole in my case, dear policeman, dear policeman,
There's a hole in my case, dear policeman, a hole.
Then fix it, dear Mignini, dear Mignini, dear Mignini,
Then fix it, dear Mignini, dear Mignini, fix it.

With what shall I fix it, dear policeman, dear policeman?
With what shall I fix it, dear policeman, with what?
With a bra clasp, dear Mignini, dear Mignini, dear Mignini,
With a bra clasp, dear Mignini, dear Mignini, a clasp.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

insecure

The easiest one? Both times?

Piktor,

That does not sound like a very secure crime scene.