Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Mary_H]

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?

The intent of the law is to protect the suspect's rights, one of which is to remain silent. It is likely Amanda was not informed of her right to remain silent, but even if she had been, and naively decided to waive that right by spontaneously making a statement outside the presence of her lawyer, it is the responsibility of the PM to understand the intent of the law and to act accordingly in an ethical manner, not to take advantage of the suspect's ignorance.

 

[Machiavelli]

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

I think you made a point about timings (01:45 and 05:45). I think you objected the assertion that Amanda's interrogation, where she made Patrick's name, lasted between 22:40 and 01:45 (less than 3 hours).

Incidentally, Amanda doesn't claimed she well treated after she made the name of Patrick, and this happend by 01:45.

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?

Because the 01:45 was not a spontaneous statement.
The definition spontaneous statement (dichiarazioni spontanee) is a legal term that defines declarations given by a suspect who is allowed to say whatever he/she wishes, out of questions bonds of an interrogation.

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

There are two kind decrees of arrest, the police arrest and the judiciary arrest, which make two steps. There is also the warrant which is something independent from the decree of arrest, it is the documents that makes a person become a formal suspect. This is the document she signed in the night. The decree of judicial arrest comes afterwrds.

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."

The appeal documents are there for anyone who wishes to read them You haven't shown the 5:45 is disouted of being an interrogation by any lawyer. Bear in mind that I don't want anything: saying it is an interrogation is just a lie, this is so, it will be always considered a statement aby anybody, there is nothing more you need to know. If you want to lie, it's your buisness. I just rectify to what facts are.

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?

I think I could be systematic and elaborate only by the end of Amanda's trial. I don't think it is appropriate to do it now. Anyway I do't think I have to spend my time in demonstrations for non-neutral supporters, when available material is there be discussed and checked by any neutral reader.
ps. The singular term is colpevolista, with the final "a".

 

[Justinian2]

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.

Ha, ya that's better.

About that confession:

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY

WASHINGTON 25, D. C.

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR 25 APR 1956

______________________________________________________________


MEMORANDUM FOR: The Honorable J. Edgar Hoover

Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation

SUBJECT : Brainwashing





TECHNIQUES AND THEIR EFFECTS:



5. Induction of Fatigue. This is a well-known device for breaking will power and critical powers of judgment. Deprivation of sleep results in more intense psychological debilitation than does any other method of engendering fatigue. The communists vary their methods. "Conveyor belt" interrogation that last 50-60 hours will make almost any individual compromise, but there is danger that this will kill the victim. It is safer to conduct interrogations of 8-10 hours at night while forcing the prisoner to remain awake during the day. Additional interruptions in the remaining 2-3 hours of allotted sleep quickly reduce the most resilient individual .


Fatigue, in addition to reducing the will to resist, also produces irritation……forgetfulness, and decreased ability to maintain orderly thought processes.

Brainwashing techniques were used against Amanda to get her "confession".
Surprised they didn't try "waterboarding".

 

[Machiavelli]

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?

But the prosecutors don't have any power in relation to "parole" or release. They don't have any power once the process is concluded.

 

[Mary_H]

ps. The singular term is colpevolista, with the final "a".

Grazie. I will respond to the rest of your post later today.

 

[Withnail1969]

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.

And who can forget my legendary

'Footprints on bathmats and bloodstains on bidets
These are a few of my favourite things...'

 

[shuttlt]

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;

OK. Aspects of what she said were clearly used in press conferences and so on. I'm not aware of the entire statement being handed over. It seems to be a tricky one though. Since the statements in the inadmissable statements are the principle reason for her being arrested, if the police aren't able to refer to them, then they can't really explain to the press why they arrested her, can they? In any case, it's not my intention to defend the press, or the people who have used them in this case. Generally speaking the bidirectional relationship newspapers have with these kinds of cases isn't terribly wholesome.

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.

True. That to me says that they can't have been illegal, or at least that the judge decided that their probative value outweighed any prejudicial issues. As to the whole combined slander/muder trial thing. I'd need to refresh my memory on it in order to comment. On the face of it it is more than a little strange.

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.

Again, I'd have to read up on this aspect of the case. My undestanding is that in the UK and US it is possible for inadmissable evidence to become admissable during the course of the trial... the defence making reference to it for example. I don't mean to imply that I'm claiming that that's what happened here, only that I don't think admissable/inadmissable is necessarily an always-and-for-all-time kind of thing.

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.

I certainly don't intend to claim that it is a synonym for "after being made a suspect, but without a lawyer".

Machiavelli previously posted the following definition:

The definition spontaneous statement (dichiarazioni spontanee) is a legal term that defines declarations given by a suspect who is allowed to say whatever he/she wishes, out of questions bonds of an interrogation.

My reading at the moment is that admissable statements from a suspect can generally only come from interrogations while lawyers are present. Since spontaneous statements come outside that context they generally are not admissable.

 

[shuttlt]

The intent of the law is to protect the suspect's rights, one of which is to remain silent. It is likely Amanda was not informed of her right to remain silent, but even if she had been, and naively decided to waive that right by spontaneously making a statement outside the presence of her lawyer, it is the responsibility of the PM to understand the intent of the law and to act accordingly in an ethical manner, not to take advantage of the suspect's ignorance.

Are you saying that if Amanda had spontaneously confessed, Mignini should have pretended she hadn't because anybody with any sense would keep silent? She didn't have to write the gift either, should he have torn that up?

 

[shuttlt]

About that confession:



Brainwashing techniques were used against Amanda to get her "confession".
Surprised they didn't try "waterboarding".

They are talking about interrogations lasting 50-60 hours. The communists didn't allow people to go home, sleep with their boyfriends/girlfriends (in so far as their worries allowed them), go to college, eat pizza... with 2 hours of questioning here, 3 hours there dotted about.

Comparing what happened to Amanda to the Stazi, or the KGB is extremely silly. Please confirm it is a joke.

 

[shuttlt]

But the prosecutors don't have any power in relation to "parole" or release. They don't have any power once the process is concluded.

Apologies for the spelling. Sure, the prosecutor can't... I'm talking about some distant future after the current round of appeals.

 

[Justinian2]

They are talking about interrogations lasting 50-60 hours. The communists didn't allow people to go home, sleep with their boyfriends/girlfriends (in so far as their worries allowed them), go to college, eat pizza... with 2 hours of questioning here, 3 hours there dotted about.

Comparing what happened to Amanda to the Stazi, of the KGB is extremely silly. Please confirm it is a joke.

From the CIA document on Brainwashing:

It is safer to conduct interrogations of 8-10 hours at night while forcing the prisoner to remain awake during the day. Additional interruptions in the remaining 2-3 hours of allotted sleep quickly reduce the most resilient individual .

Fatigue, in addition to reducing the will to resist, also produces irritation……forgetfulness, and decreased ability to maintain orderly thought processes.

After the Brainwashing came the "Spontanious Confession".

 

[Justinian2]

They are talking about interrogations lasting 50-60 hours. The communists didn't allow people to go home, sleep with their boyfriends/girlfriends (in so far as their worries allowed them), go to college, eat pizza... with 2 hours of questioning here, 3 hours there dotted about.

Comparing what happened to Amanda to the Stazi, or the KGB is extremely silly. Please confirm it is a joke.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/FBI7.html

The link above is to Moore's article on the interrogation of Amanda. What is the part you disagree the most with?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Karl Fontenot in Ada, Oklahoma

They are talking about interrogations lasting 50-60 hours. The communists didn't allow people to go home, sleep with their boyfriends/girlfriends (in so far as their worries allowed them), go to college, eat pizza... with 2 hours of questioning here, 3 hours there dotted about.

Comparing what happened to Amanda to the Stazi, or the KGB is extremely silly. Please confirm it is a joke.

shuttlt,

Karl Fontenot confessed within a few hours of the start of his interrogation. His statement is not worth a plugged nickel, either.

 

[shuttlt]

From the CIA document on Brainwashing:



After the Brainwashing came the "Spontanious Confession".

So you really are trying to claim that what Amanda went through is in some way comporable to being interrogated by the Stazi! OK. I hadn't been certain.

The second time you quoted it, you cropped things a little more:

The communists vary their methods. "Conveyor belt" interrogation that last 50-60 hours will make almost any individual compromise, but there is danger that this will kill the victim. It is safer to conduct interrogations of 8-10 hours at night while forcing the prisoner to remain awake during the day. Additional interruptions in the remaining 2-3 hours of allotted sleep quickly reduce the most resilient individual .

First, Amanda didn't produce a "confession" after a 50-60 hour session, or even 8-10 an hour session. She produced it after something of the order of a couple of hours. She never had anything like an 8-10 hour session of interrogation. Second it is abundantly clear that the article is talking about multiple periods of 8-10 hours, with 2-3 hour gaps in which sleep was further interrupted by the interrogators.

The Stazi did not allow people to go home, or go to their boyfriends and return 8 hours later. They did not allow them to go out for pizza. They did not allow them to go to college. In the interrogation you are describing the suspects were so exhausted that they had to deliberately wake them to prevent them sleeping between sessions. It is being claimed that Amanda might not have been able to sleep very well due to stress. How much stress would one be under being interrogated by the communists back in that era? I guess Stalin was a couple of years dead by '57, but still.... the police station in Perugia in late 2007 is not the Lubyanka in 1957.

 

[Justinian2]

So you really are trying to claim that what Amanda went through is in some way comporable to being interrogated by the Stazi! OK. I hadn't been certain.

The second time you quoted it, you cropped things a little more:

First, Amanda didn't produce a "confession" after a 50-60 hour session, or even 8-10 an hour session. She produced it after something of the order of a couple of hours. She never had anything like an 8-10 hour session of interrogation. Second it is abundantly clear that the article is talking about multiple periods of 8-10 hours, with 2-3 hour gaps in which sleep was further interrupted by the interrogators.

The Stazi did not allow people to go home, or go to their boyfriends and return 8 hours later. They did not allow them to go out for pizza. They did not allow them to go to college. In the interrogation you are describing the suspects were so exhausted that they had to deliberately wake them to prevent them sleeping between sessions. It is being claimed that Amanda might not have been able to sleep very well due to stress. How much stress would one be under being interrogated by the communists back in that era? I guess Stalin was a couple of years dead by '57, but still.... the police station in Perugia in late 2007 is not the Lubyanka in 1957.

I believe Amanda was interrogated for 43 hours in five days. The last eight hours were at night from 10:30 p.m. until 6:00 a.m.

Why at night? And why by a 'tag team' of detectives rotated so that the detectives would be fresh as Amanda wore down and became exasperated & exhausted?

 

[shuttlt]

shuttlt,

Karl Fontenot confessed within a few hours of the start of his interrogation. His statement is not worth a plugged nickel, either.

Man, there is too damn much to read. The case looks confusing and as yet unresolved. In any case, I'm not denying that people can make false confessions and false statements in interrogations, sometimes in pretty short order. As we both know there are even people who seek the police out in order to do so.

Was he of normal intelligence, and did he have false memories?

In any case, the post that you responded to was intended as a response to using examples of KGB interrogation techniques from the 50's, which I presume you would agree aren't a very good fit for what happened in Perugia?

 

[Withnail1969]

Man, there is too damn much to read. The case looks confusing and as yet unresolved. In any case, I'm not denying that people can make false confessions and false statements in interrogations, sometimes in pretty short order. As we both know there are even people who seek the police out in order to do so.

Was he of normal intelligence, and did he have false memories?

In any case, the post that you responded to was intended as a response to using examples of KGB interrogation techniques from the 50's, which I presume you would agree aren't a very good fit for what happened in Perugia?

In some respects they are textbook KGB tactics. Keeping the suspect up all night, lying to the subject, making dire threats, interrogating the subject with a large group of interrogators to intimidate them - I'm sure all that would be in the KGB manual.

 

[platonov]

Sticks & Stones

<snip>

This line of the discussion though is probably immaterial. I recall that there was testimony that there was no evidence that a tool was used to open the shutters.

Indeed.
There was some talk earlier in this thread of a 'long stick' - but this argument was pooh-poohed and hasn't been heard in a while.

<snip>

The longer you're explaining yourself the less convincing it sounds.

<snip>

Now that is ironic

Much more so than rain on your wedding day [even given the case that the bride was a weather girl whose own forecast was 'Scorchio'.]

Far out! We have an uncontested claim here. I'm not sure that anyone ever suggested he did, but still we should take these small steps forward whenever we can.

I expect there are many other things we can agree that Guede was not arrested with, but it isn't clear how useful that would be.

<snip>

More baby steps.

It can also be agreed he wasn't arrested carrying a large rock [ 5 Kg or 10 lbs ? ]. In fact I believe it its likely that very few, if any, burglary suspects were ever arrested in possession of such a tool.

<snip>

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

I agree - but that is quite an understatement, most unusual for this thread.

ETA On this note I see the Cheka (or chekist tactics) are back.

 

[shuttlt]

I believe Amanda was interrogated for 43 hours in five days.

That is your belief. I think Mary suggested a figure of 17 hours. In any case, the overwhelming bulk of that time wasn't spent with them acting like 1950's communist interrogators. They may have made her feel like a criminal but it's not as if they were shining a light in her face shouting "confess"! Even accepting your 43 hours, that's 43 hours being interrogated, 77 going about her business. Over the same interval, the communists that you are equating wouldn't have allowed her to leave the police station, they would have spent around 93 hours interrogating her (presumably far more harshly than Amanda) and allowed her 26 hours in her cell waking her up whenever she slept for more than a few minutes at a time.

The last eight hours were at night from 10:30 p.m. until 6:00 a.m.

10:30am is the earliest it could possibly be, and I don't see how it could be that early, but let's not argue about it. She had already confessed by 1:45am. Anything after that can't contribute to her confession. The interrogation then stopped and whatever we choose to call the session ending at 5:45am certainly did not begin immediately.

Why at night? And why by a 'tag team' of detectives rotated so that the detectives would be fresh as Amanda wore down and became exasperated & exhausted?

What detective rotation? She "confession" by 1:45am, so it was hardly a grueling interrogation.

 

[Matthew Best]

I agree - but that is quite an understatement, most unusual for this thread.

.

Now there's some irony! You agree that nothing needs to be added, yet you went ahead and added something anyway.